* 
‘ 


= 


᾿ _ ΖσύΖ2 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 


fe GIFT OF 
yr DANTE LC. GLEMAN. 


Ep TEL, 
oa | AUG 


| by the Internet Archive. 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation _ 


Ϊ ᾽ ᾿ 


ον ἢ 


yh 


GRAMMATICAL AND RHETORICAL, 


UPON THE 


ORATION ON THE CROWN, 


WITH AN 


HISTORICAL SKETCH. 


NEW HAVEN: 
PRINTED BY EZEKIEL HAYES. 


1855. 


Φ τὸ ᾿ 
Ss 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 


(434 {4.4.2 559 MAIN 


INTRODUCTION. 


ΝΠ" es 


OF Canforni®s 5. 
ΗΑ ΒΠΒΕΝΟΙΝΝ,,.. a 


δῖ, Prriop unper Review. 404-338, B.C. 


1. Grexce never recovered from the effects of the Pelopon- ΜΙ 
nesian war. ‘The course of events, which began soon after the 
termination of that war and which originated in the state of 
things produced by it, held on its destructive way till it came 
to an end in the subjugation of Greece under Philip. The influ- 
ence of the Peloponnesian war doubtless extended itself farther, 
but is no longer distinguishable in the general current of events. 
We may, therefore, consider the period extending from the end 
of that war to the battle of Cheronea,—from 404, B. C., to 338, 
B. C., 66 years—as constituting a’ single historical period. This 
period, however, is subdivided into two; the period in which 
Greece struggles with success to secure her freedom from the 
domination of Sparta, and the period in which she loses that 
recovered freedom and falls under the power of Philip of Mace- 
don. The first of these subordinate periods extends to the 
362, Β. Ὁ. battle of Mantinea and the accession of Philip to the 
359, B.C. throne, embracing forty-five years, at the end of which 
time the states of Greece are indeed free, but with the loss of the 
ancient Hellenic sentiment of union against a foreign foe and 
without any one state able to control the rest, at the same time 
distracted by internal feuds and weakened and corrupted b 
long wars. The second period extends to the battle of Cheero- 
nea, embracing twenty-one years and terminating 
with the utter and final ruin of Grecian freedom. 
These two subdivisions of the general period stand to each 
other in the relation of cause and effect; germs were planted 
in the former which brought forth fruit in the latter. Hence 


338,.8. 6. 


ἀν 


4 4: 


the two should be studied in connection. But, besides this 
reason for studying them in connection, the student of Demos- 
thenes has another ; although the final struggle in which De- 
mosthenes contended for Grecian independence took place in 
the latter period, yet, without a knowledge of the former, it is 
impossible either to understand the historical statements and 
allusions in the speeches of the orator, or to comprehend the 
objects and principles of the policy recommended in them. 


δ΄], Srarz or GreEcE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS 
GENERAL PERIOD. 404, B.C. 


2. In treating of the state of Greece at the opening of this 
period, it will be sufficient to speak of Athens and 


am 
pos Sparta; and first, of Athens. 


The battle of Aigospotami which was fought in September 
or October, 405, B.C., resulted in the capture of almost the 
entire Athenian fleet, only twelve triremes escaping 
| of the one hundred and eighty-two of which it was 
composed. Farther resistance was impossible: Byzantium, 
Of Foreign Chalcedon, Lesbos, Thasos, Samos, indeed, all the 
Possessions. cjties either in alliance with Athens or dependent — 
upon her, both on the islands of the A‘gean, in Thrace and in ~~ 
Asia Minor, submitted to Lysander,—thus was Athens stripped 
Capture of Of her foreign possessions. Six months after, about 
the City. the middle or end of March, 404, B.C., the city 
itself was taken, and the Peloponnesian war ended. 

3. Athens"was compelled to submit to the following terms of 
peace: that her Long Walls and the fortifications 
of the Pirzeus should be destroyed, her vessels with 
the exception of twelve surrendered, her foreign possessions 
abandoned, and her citizens confined to the territory of Attica ; 
moreover, that the political exiles should be restored, and Athens 
become a member of the Peloponnesian confederation, under 
the headship of Sparta. In exacting these terms, Sparta aimed 

at two definite objects; on the one hand, to prevent 
‘Athens from again becoming a maritime power, 
and, on the other, to place the government in the hands of 
those who would submit to reduce their country into a state of 
perpetual dependence on Sparta, in the system of Grecian poli- 


Loss of Fleet. 


Terms of Peace. 


Aims of Sparta 


Ἰ 


tics. Upon the former of these objects, the clause confining 
Athenian citizens to the territory of Attica had a direct bearing. 
Under Pericles, and to some extent earlier, Athens had planted 
many colonies of citizens in the islands of the Aigean, in the 
Thracian Chersonesus, in the northern parts of Eubcea, and 
elsewhere within her empire. These settlers, becoming the 
active men of business in those regions, had contributed much 
to the commercial prosperity of Athens, while by retaining 
their rights as Athenian citizens and thus identifying their own 
interests with those of their native land they added equally to 
her power. All these citizens Lysander compelled to return to 
Athens, having first, however, stripped them of their posses- 
sions. ‘ Now, the clause of the treaty under consideration not 
only deprived Athens of a large amount of property, by pre- 
venting the return of these colonists to their homes, but de- 
stroyed the system of colonization itself; while the loss of her 
fleet and the destruction of the fortifications of her harbor dis- 
abled her from affording the necessary protection to the foreign 
commerce both of her own resident citizens and of such foreign- 
ers as might still have traded with her. The restoration of the 
exiles was aimed at the Athenian democracy and had for its 
object to place the government in the hands of its bitter ene- 
mies, who would rule in subjection to Sparta. These exiles 
were leaders in the oligarchy, many of whom had been expelled 
and others had fled from the city. Some of these exiles had 
served with the Spartans in Decelea; others had been in the 
fleet of Lysander, fighting against their country; all were now 
present, exulting in the humiliation of Athens, shouting along 
with her enemies at the prostration of her walls, and burning 
to wreak vengeance upon their fellow-citizens of the democracy. 
It was through such men as these,—and the greater part of 
them belonged to the most ancient and best Attic families— 
that Sparta hoped to make Athens one of her humble tribu- 
taries. 

4. The government, which was established in Athens soon 
The Thirty after the peace, was an oligarchy of thirty persons— 
Tyrants. {Π6 well known “Thirty Tyrants,” aided by a police 
force of eleven, the equally well known “ Eleven Executioners.” 
At first, they were able to maintain themselves without aid 
from Sparta; but such was the fury with which they raged 

1 


6 


against the people, that they were soon compelled to solicit ἃ 
military force. Accordingly, a Lacedemonian garrison and 
harmost were planted in the Acropolis itself. Thus was Athens 
reduced by her own citizens to the lowest state of humiliation. 
The empire of Sparta embraced all Peloponnesus, Attica, 
Sparta. Her Boeotia and the remainder of central Greece, to- 
mpire. gether with the cities in Thrace and in the islands 
of the Aigean, which had been dependent on Athens. Her 
fleet, increased by the triremes which were taken at 
Zigospotami and those which were surrendered at 
Athens, was larger than had been collected in Greece, since the 
battle of Salamis; and her army was proportionally 
great. Besides, the forces of the several states under 
the headship of Sparta were commanded while in actual ser- 
vice, by Spartan officers. The foreign policy of the Grecian 
Influence in world was controlled by her; at the same time, she 
Foreign and exercised an absolute authority over the domestic 
politics. politics of the individual states. The great political 
struggles in nearly every Grecian city and state turned upon 
the question of oligarchy or democracy. Athens was the head 
of the democracy, Sparta of the oligarchy. The Peloponnesian 
war itself was to some extent a contest between these two parties. 
The supremacy of Sparta now placed the whole Grecian world 
in the hands of the oligarchy. The scheme of government 
which Lysander, acting in the name of Sparta, universally es- 
tablished, was called a Decarchy; a government administered 
by ten men, selected from the most powerful of the oligarchical 
families, and supported by a Lacedeemonian garrison and har- 
most. With the exception of Athens, where, as we have seen, 
an oligarchy of Thirty was established, this form of government 
was imposed by Sparta upon all the states, both tributary and 
allied, throughout her empire, and that, too, though she had 
begun the war with the express purpose and promise of giving 
freedom to Greece, and leaving each city and state to govern 
itself. But, instead of this universal autonomy, there was estab- 
lished and enforced the most grinding tyranny that had ever 
been felt in Greece. ; 
6. Such was the situation of Athens and Sparta, at the close 
of the Peloponnesian war. Athens, without a single 
foreign possession, without tribute, without a single 


Fleet. 


Army. 


Summary. 


μὰ 


Ἷ 


fortified place in Attica and with her Long Walls and the forti- 
fications of the Pirzeus destroyed, without a fleet or army, 
almost without commerce, and above all torn and distracted 
and oppressed by a ferocious and revengeful oligarchy. Sparta, 
with a powerful fleet and army, with a large tribute, and with 
an empire embracing almost the entire Grecian world, over 
which she exercised an imperious rule. 


RECOVERY OF GRECIAN FREEDOM FROM THE 
DOMINATION OF SPARTA. 403-359, B.C. 


§ III. Generay view. 


7. The course of events in Greece, during the half century 
which followed the complete establishment of Spartan despot- 
ism, tended towards the single point of the maintenance or the 
overthrow of that despotism. Both war and peace were made 
to turn on the question of Spartan supremacy. We proceed, 
therefore, to speak of the most important of those events by 
which the empire of Sparta was subverted and the freedom of 
Greece rescued from her grasp. These events were, the over- 
throw of the Thirty Tyrants in 403, B.C.; the destruction of 
the maritime power of Sparta by the battle of Cnidus, in 394, 
B. C.; the re-construction of the maritime empire of Athens in 
371, B.C.; and the battle of Leuctra in 871, B. C., which 
weakened, and the battle of Mantinea in 862, B. C., which pros- 
trated the power of Sparta on land, and brought to a close the 
long series of hostilities which grew out of the Peloponnesian 
war. 9 


- 
. 
4. 


§ ΠῚ. ΟΥ̓ΒΕΤΗΚΟΥ or tHe Turrty Tyrants anp Rusto- 
RATION OF ATHENIAN Democracy. 408, B.C, 


8. The first movement in the direction of freedom was the 
Overthrow of Overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, and the restoration 
the Thirty. of the Athenian democracy. The duration of this 
tyranny was only eight months, yet within that short period 
more than twelve hundred citizens were slain, one after the 


8 


other, as hate or fear or lust of plunder marked them out for 
slaughter; multitudes more were driven into exile, or fled; vast 
private possessions, the property of those who had been slain 
and of those who were in exile, were confiscated ; and the city 
filled with carnage and rapine. The Thirty began with putting 
to death the most obnoxious of the demagogues; next, they 
made way with the leaders of the democracy, then with the 
most worthy and respectable of the private citizens ; and, finally, 
raged with indiscriminate slaughter against the wealthy of 
every class, whether belonging to the democracy or the oli- 
garchy, whether citizens or foreigners. They also drove large 
numbers of individuals into exile, and at length, after the death 
of Theramenes, by a single act expelled the whole body of citi- 
zens at once, with the exception of the Three Thousand whom 
they had enrolled as reliable followers. Many citizens fled of 
their own accord, but against these, the Thirty raged with pecu- 
liar ferocity, and even obtained from Sparta a proclamation, 
that the Grecian states into which they fled should surrender 
‘the refugees to the government of Athens. Confiscation and 
pillage kept pace with the slaughter and banishment of the 
citizens. 

9. But extreme violence can not last; and in the present 
Causes of the case, the violent measures of the Spartans, of the 
Overthrow. ‘Thirty, and of Lysander, interfered with each other 
and finally wrought out deliverance for the Athenian people. 
1. The injustice and arrogance of the Spartans had alienated 
their allies and made them less hostile to Athens. All the 
booty which had been taken in the latter years of the war, and 
the large sums which Lysander had received from Cyrus for 
carrying it on, the Spartans kept for their own use, although 
the allies who had borne an equal share in the toil, claimed 
their proportion. The Thebans had an additional cause of 
complaint. For, the Spartans, in the dedication of offerings at 
Delphi, had omitted the name of the Thebans in the inscription 
which recorded the names of their other allies. The result was, 
that the Grecian states disregarded the proclamation, requiring 
the surrender of the exiles, and harbored the Athenian patriots, 
who thus in security awaited the opportunity for the recovery 
of their freedom. The Thebans, who a few months before in 
the council to determine on the fate of Athens, had voted to 


9 


raze the city to the ground, to sell the citizens as slaves, and 
convert the whole of Attica into a pasture ground for sheep, 
now, not only harbored the exiles but protected them from in- 
jury by a special decree and ordered that no one should take 
notice of it, if any of the exiles should go armed from Beeotia 
_into Attica. Such were the opportunities afforded, by the dis- 
satisfaction of the allies with the Spartans, for concerting and 
preparing plans for the overthrow of the Thirty. 2. The vio- 
lence of the tyrants themselves. had so disgusted and estranged 
the greater part of the oligarchy that they fought with very 
little heart against Thrasybulus and his band of patriots, who 
otherwise could hardly have got possession of the Pirzus. 
3. The pride and haughtiness of Lysander had excited the sus- 
picions of the Spartans and the jealousy of king Pausanias to 
such a degree that in answer to a requisition for aid, Pausanias 
was sent along with Lysander to the relief of the Thirty. Had 
Lysander retained his influence unimpaired, there can hardly 
be a doubt but that Thrasybulus would have been defeated 
and the Thirty reinstated in power. But through the influence 
of Pausanias, a truce was granted, commissioners were sent to 
Sparta, and freedom restored to Athens. It is not necessary, 
however, to detail the steps by which Thrasybulus and his band 
of exiles, starting from Bceotia under the connivance of the 
Theban state and aided by individual Thebans, seized upon 
Phyle, and then, through the lukewarmness of the oligarchy 
- got possession of the Pirzeus, and then, through the sufferance 
of the Spartans themselves entered the city and restored the 
democracy. 

10. Athens is now free. The Lacedemonian garrison and 
Restoration of harmost are withdrawn from the Acropolis, and 
the Democracy. Lacedzemonian troops from Attica. The govern- 
ment is restored; the archons, the senate of Five Hundred, 
the Assembly, and the dikasteries. The democracy, too, was 
restored pure and simple as it existed before the capture of the 
city; and it is to the honor of the people that past enmities 
were forgotten, and none but the infamous Thirty and the 
Eleven who executed their commands, molested for what had 
been done during this ancient “Reign of Terror.” Thus ends, 
in the spring of 403, B. C., the “ Year of Anarchy”—the Year 
without an Archon, The archonship of Euclides, 403, B. C., 


10 


becomes a marked epoch in Athenian history. But though 
free, Athens is poor and powerless. She has, however, the 
springs of life within and needs only an opportunity to rise 
again to power. But it should be noted, that this revolution 
in Athens had no effect upon Spartan predominance in the 
other states of Greece. 


ὧν. Desrrucrion or tHE Maritime Emprme or Sparta. 
403-394, B.C. 


11. The next important step in the emancipation of Greece 
from Spartan domination was the destruction of the maritime 
empire of Sparta, at the battle of Cnidus. From the restora- 
tion of the Athenian democracy to this battle was about ten 
‘cere bs the spring of 403, B.C. to midsummer of 394, 

.C. We first glance, therefore, at the intermediate period. 

12, In- Greece, during the whole of these ten years, there 
Events between WAS but a single war, a war between Sparta and 
403394, B.C. Elis, This war arose out of an artful scheme of 
policy, now adopted by Sparta against the larger cities of 
War between reece. An independent city-government was the 
Sparta and Elis, paramount object of ambition with every Grecian 
401—399, B.C. *. ) i 

city, great or small; nothing could be more odious 
to them than to be subject to a ruling city. Indeed, this re- 
luctance to be under another, “to do what was bidden,” as 
Demosthenes expresses it, had a controlling influence in many 
periods of Grecian history. Hence the many wars of Thebes 
with Platza, and Thespie and Orchomenus. But, still, not- 
withstanding this inaptitude to enter into permanent political 
confederations, there was a kind of headship exercised by cer- 
tain cities over the smaller cities within particular territories. 
Such was the control of Thebes over the cities of Boeotia, of 
Athens over those of Attica, and Sparta over those of Laconia. 
The sentiment of union, however, was weak, and, in many cases, 
the confederation was maintained only by superiority of power. 
It was this spirit of independence—this ambition of autonomy 
—pervading the Greek cities, that Sparta now made use of, for 
her own advantage ; she came forward as the champion of the 
smaller cities and proclaimed the principle, “ that no city should 
keep smaller places in subjection.” The carrying out of this 
principle would of course weaken all the larger states of Greece, 


ἘΣ 


and enable Sparta, as she did not propose to relax her own hold 
upon the subject townships of Laconia, easily to rule the whole. 
The first forcible application of this principle was against Elis, 
Sparta demanded that Elis should relinquish the . authority 
which she exercised over certain dependant townships im Tri- 
phylia,—a region lying on the south of her, between the rivers 
Alpheus and Neda. On the refusal of Elis to comply with this 
command, Sparta invaded her territories ; and after a war which 
extended through portions of three years, compelled Elis to 
-submit to what had been demanded of her, This victory over 
Elis made Sparta supreme throughout Peloponnesus, and es- 
tablished a policy fraught with consequences most fatal to Gre- 
cian freedom. Through it as a principal cause, after the peace 
of Antalcidas, Sparta ruled over subjugated Greece. . 
13. We turn now to the proceedings of Sparta in Asia Minor, 
_ Affairs in Asia which had a close connection with affairs in Greece, 
ριον During the ten years of almost continuous peace in 
Sparta between Greece—tarbroken only by the war against Elis,—~ 
Persia. Sparta was engaged in hostilities with the King of 
Persia. They originated as follows. During the last years of 
Causes of the the Peloponnesian war, Sparta, in consideration of 
Wars aid against Athens, had bargained in three formal 
conventions to surrender the Greek cities of Asia Minor inte 
the hands of the King of Persia.—those cities having ever been 
an object of ambition to the kings of Persia but hitherto suc- 
cessfully protected by Athens. After the battle of Aigospotami, 
the fulfilment of this bargain was exacted ; and, the cities along 
the coast of Ionia, Afolis and the Hellespont, with the excep- 
tion of Abydos, were delivered into the power of Tissaphernes, 
satrap of that region. But the policy of the younger Cyrus led 
him to seek the favor of these cities. Thus countenanced, they 
revolt from Tissaphernes and throw themselves into the hands 
of Cyrus, who stations Greek garrisons in them for their pro- 
tection. Soon after this, Cyrus sets out on his famous expedi- 
tion, accompanied by a large army of Greek mercenaries—the 
renowned “Ten Thousand”—to wrest the throne of Persia 
from his brother Artaxerxes. But the defeat and death of 
. Oyrus at the battle of Cunaxa at once changed the course of 
events. Tissaphernes, relinquishing the pursuit of the Ten 
Thousand, returns to the coast and attacks the Greek cities. 


r 


12 


These implore Sparta to aid them. Sparta, who had connived 
at the expedition of Cyrus and had rendered him secret assist- 
ance, now resolves, partly from ambition and partly from shame 
at her former betrayal of these cities, to give the desired aid. 
The aid is given, and a war commences, which con- 
tinued twelve years,—to the peace of Antalcidas. . 

14, The war between Sparta and Persia had a decisive influ- 
Effects on ence on Grecian affairs. It gave an opportunity to 
Greece. Athens, Thebes and Corinth, who-had refused. to co- 
operate with Sparta, to recover themselves. Besides, the Per- 
sians were at length driven by the success of the Spartans to 
attempt the overthrow of the very dominion which they had 
aided to establish. They aim a double blow; against the mari- 
time ascendency of Sparta, through a fleet to be manned in part 
by Greeks, and against her dominion on land, by exciting a 
war in Greece. 

15. It was fortunate for Persia,—fortunate too for Greece— 
Preparation that she was able to bring into her service, the ablest 
ef aFilect. admiral of his times, the Athenian Conon. Conon, 
who escaped from Aigospotami with the only triremes which 
were saved, had been since living in seclusion with Evagoras 
prince of Salamis, in Cyprus, where he awaited the opportuni- 
ties which time might bring. The war between Sparta and 
Persia afforded him the desired field of action. Through the 
influence of Pharnabazus, satrap of Phrygia, the King of Persia 
was induced to equip a fleet to be put under his command, 
This was in 395, B.C. It at once inflicted a heavy blow on 
Sparta. For, encouraged by the presence of Conon with his 
fleet, the island of Rhodes revolts from Sparta,—the first revolt 
within her empire. Meanwhile, however, Sparta was not inac- 
tive. Aided by her allies, she fits out a powerful fleet, and is 
ready for the contest. Without entering into details, it ‘will be 
sufficient to say, that by the summer of 394, B.C., the fleets 
_ were prepared for the struggle, which was to decide the fate of 
the maritime empire of Sparta. 

16. We have now arrived at the year 394, B. C., which was 
The Year 394, crowded with events important te ον ἃ Taking 
B. Ὁ. our stand at the commencement of it, we may con- 
template the situation of the several parties who were to be the 
principal actors in them. Off the south-western coast of Asia 


399-387, B. C. 


18 


Minor, were two large fleets, ready to contend for the mastery 
of the sea. In Asia Minor itself, Agesilaus, who had been suc- 
cessful in all his attacks upon the Persians, was now looking 
forward to the accomplishment of vast schemes of conquest. 
In Greece, every thing was quiet, excepting a quarrel between 
the Locrians and Phocians, about a small strip of border land 
north of the Opuntian Locrians. The power of the Spartan 
empire was unbroken. Athens was weak, though doubtless in 
the preceding eight years of peace, she had somewhat recovered 
herself. Nor was she without her great men, like Thrasybulus, 
who could take advantage of every opportunity which might 
be presented. It was doubtless a year of hope. The proceed- 
ings of Conon must have been known, and indications were not 
wanting of a general disposition in Greece to attempt some- 
thing for freedom. 

17. In describing the events of this year, we shall not follow 
Battle of Cni- ἃ Strictly chronological order. We begin with the 
dus, 394 B.C. hattle of Cnidus, which was fought about the month 
of July. The fleet opposed to the Spartans was composed of 
Pheenician and Grecian vessels, the former commanded by 
Pharnabazus and the latter by Conon. The Spartan fleet was 
commanded by Pisander. Pharnabazus and Conon bring their 
united fleet round to the island of Rhodes, whence they sailed 
to offer battle to the Spartan fleet, which lay in the harbor of 
Cnidus in the peninsula of Cnidus, nearly opposite Rhodes. 
The Spartans accept the challenge and a battle is fought. But 
the Spartans are defeated, Peisander slain, and more than half 
their vessels captured or destroyed. Thus did Conon, who 
alone of.the Grecian commanders performed the duty of a 
great captain in the battle of Aigospotami, avenge the dishonor 
of that calamitous defeat. 

18. The results of this battle were most important. It struck 
Destruction of # fatal blow at Spartan supremacy on the sea, from 
the Spartan Mar- which Sparta never recovered. ‘The islands in the 
itime Empire. Aoean, and the cities on the coast of Asia Minor, at 
once revolt and proclaim themselves independent; Cos, Nisyra, 
Teos, Chios, Erythra, Ephesus, Mitylene, and Samos. Pharna- 
bazus and Conon sailed from island to island, from city to city, 
driving out the Lacedzemonian garrisons and harmosts, and 
leaving the inhabitants free to enjoy their coveted autonomy. 


14 


But Conon rendered another service to the Athenians, still 
Rebuilding of MOre gratifying. Through his influence with Phar- 
the Walls of nabazus, the victorious fleet was brought over to the 
ga eo shores of Greece, and under its protection and aid, 
the Long Walls and the fortifications of the Pirzus are rebuilt. 

But in connection with this attack on sea, Persia attempted, 
as we have before said, to excite a war against Sparta in conti- 
nental Greece. For this purpose an agent was sent into the 
principal cities, with promises of codperation. But before any 
concerted action could be effected, a war broke out, idepend- 
ently of Persian interference, between Sparta and Thebes—the 
Beeotian war, which also commenced in this year. We turn, 
therefore, from the hostilities in Asia Minor, which no longer 
possess interest for us, to Greece, to trace the first attempts at 
freedom there. 


§ VI. Preriop BETWEEN THE DESTRUCTION oF THE Mart- 
TIME Empire or Sparta, AND THE WAR WHICH DE- 
STROYED HER Empire on Lanp. 394-379, B.C. 


We have gone through with two of the successive movements 
by which the freedom of Greece was rescued from the dominion 
of Sparta; the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, and the destruc- 
tion of the maritime empire of Sparta. But, before coming to 
the next triumphant event in this matter,—the battle of Leuctra, 
—there intervenes a long and gloomy period, in which Sparta 
earried her empire on land to the highest degree of power, and, 
also, of oppression. This intermediate period embraces the 
Beeotian and Corinthian War, the peace of Antalcidas, and the 
course of events which proceeded from that peace. 


I. Baortan ΑΝ Cortnroian War. 394-387, B.C. 


19. We have already referred to a quarrel between the 
Origin of the Locrians and Phocians about a strip of border land 
Wer. north of the Opuntian Locrians. The Locrians called 
in the aid of the Thebans; the Phocians appealed to the Spar- 
tans. Sparta was glad of the opportunity to attack the The- 
bans, with whom she had been dissatisfied and angry for a long 
time. It was determined that Lysander, who was now at 
Heraclea, should march from the north and Pausanias from 


15 


Peloponnesus, and that they should meet at Haliar- 
tus. Thebes thus in danger of being crushed between 
these two powerful armies, sent to Athens for aid, and Athenian 
troops under Thrasybulus marched to Haliartus. Lysander ar- 
rived before Pausanias, and without waiting for him, attacked 
the Theban forces, but was defeated and slain. Pausanias on 
coming dared not risk a battle, but demanded a truce for the 
burial of the slain and then withdrew with his forces into Pelo- 
ponnesus. The Spartans suffered a heavy loss in the death of 
Lysander. The defeat was disastrous to them in another re- 
spect. For, it led at once to a combination of states against 
them. An alliance was formed between Athens, Thebes, Cor- 
inth and Argos, which was strengthened soon after by the junc- 
tion of the Eubceans, Acarnanians, Ozolian Locrians, Ambracia, 
Leucas, and the Chalcidians of Thrace. The allies held a synod 
at Corinth and transferred thither their forces. The Spartans 
send for Argesilaus from Asia, but, so great did the danger 
appear of losing all their extra Peloponnesian possessions, that 
without waiting for his return, they engage in battle with the 
allied forces and are victorious, though no decisive results. fol- 
lowed the victory. The battle was called the battle of Corinth, 
and the war henceforth the Corinthian war. The news of the 
victory of Corinth reached Argesilaus at Amphipolis.. He hur- 
ries into Boeotia, where the allied forces had gone to resist his 
progress. He fights and gains the battle of Coronea, but makes 
no use of his victory, and soon after retires to Sparta. These 
were busy times. Within two months—the months of July 
and August of 394, B.C.—had been fought three important 
battles, the battle of Corinth, the battle of Cnidus, and the 
battle of Coronea, to which is to be added the battle of Haliar- 
tus, fought a few months earlier. Demosthenes, two generations 
later, boasts of the daring of the Athenians of this time, who, 
though the city was without ships, and without walls, marched 
to Haliartus, and, again, not many days after to Corinth. 

The Corinthian war continued from the battle of Coronea, in 
August of 394, B.C., where we leave it, to 887, B.C. The 
detail of the incidents possesses no interest. The taking of 
Lechzum, and the destruction of a Lacedemonian mora by the 
peltasts of Iphicrates are the only events of importance. The 
war "eae ended. by the peace of Antalcidas, of which we now 
speak, 3 


Events. 


16 


Il. Tue Peace or ANTALCIDAS AND ITS εν τα. 987-- 
379, B.C. 


20. The peace of Antalcidas was a master-stroke of Spartan 
Spartan Art art, but equally a master specimen of Spartan base- 
in the peace. ness, Although Sparta had been carrying on war 
against Persia almost from the end of the Pelponnesian war, 
and although Persia had been codéperating with the Greeks 

against her, yet Sparta had the art to alienate the King of Per- 
sia from the Athenians, and to obtain from him conditions of 
peace which were most favorable to her ambitious designs; but 
she did it by the sacrifice of every sentiment of Grecian. free- 
dom, by the betrayal to Persia of the very cities of Asia Minor 
for the independence of which she had professedly waged so 
many years of war, and by submitting the interests of all Greece 
to the mere despotic will of the King of Persia.. The terms 
and the language of the treaty were as follows. 
“King Artaxerxes thinks it just that the cities in 
Asia, and the island of Klazomenz and Cyprus shall belong to 
him. He thinks it just also to leave all the other Hellenic 
cities autonomous, both small and great,—except Lemnos, Im- 
bros, and Scyros, which are to belong to Athens, as they did 
originally. Should any parties refuse to accept this peace, I 
will make war upon them, along with those who are of the 
same mind.” The Grecian states formally accept the terms of 
this peace, influenced partly by the threat of the Persian King, 
partly ensnared by the bait of independence, but principally 
through their inability to resist the united force of Persia and 
Sparta. The Spartans became “ Presidents (guarantees or ex- 
ecutors) of the peace,” and used the power thus placed in their 
hands in the most despotic manner. Sparta aimed at two 
things in this peace; by the enforcement of au- 
tonomy, to break up all partial confederations in 
which several smaller cities lying im the same territory were 
united to a leading city, thus securing her own power beyond 
danger, as the single states could not compete with her; and 
at the same time, to establish in the several cities an oligarchy 
devoted to her interests. She accomplished both. By the year 
879, B.C., she had broken up all the confederacies of the Gre~ 
cian states, and by the oligarchies devoted to her made herself 


Terms. 


Aims of Sparta. 


17 


“supreme. We subjoin the following summary of her proceed- 
ings. 1. She extorted from Corinth the dismissal of 
her Argeian allies, and separated from Athens her 
confederates, Thebes and Corinth. 2. She broke up the con- 
federation of cities under the headship of Thebes, in Beeotia, 
and compelled Thebes to renounce her presidency. Besides, 
she succeeded in establishing oligarchies in most of the cities. 
Orchomenus and Thespizw were garrisoned by Lacedszemonian 
troops with a harmost. Platsea was restored, but governed by 
the partizans of Sparta. 8. Mantinea was destroyed and its 
inhabitants divided into five small villages, so as to be no longer 
formidable to Sparta. 4. By codperating with the oligarchical 
party in Thebes, Phoebidas, on his march against Olynthus, 
seized the Cadmea, and the Spartans, though they disowned 
the act and professed to punish Pheebidas for it, still kept the 
citadel, with a Lacedemonian garrison, for three years, until 
they were driven from the city by force of arms. 5. She at- 
tacked and subdued Olynthus, the head of the confederation of 
the Grecian cities in Chaleidice, and thus surrendered the Greeks 
of Chalcidice into the power of Macedon as she has surrendered 
the Asiatic Greeks to Persia. Thus, by the beginning of 379, 
B. C., Sparta had carried her dominion to the high- 
est pitch of power. The whole of inland Greece 
with the exception of Argos, Attica, and the more powerful 
‘Thessalian cities were enrolled in her confederacy. In place of 
the Lysandrian decarchies and harmosts, she had established 
an oligarchical party of devoted partizans, through whom she 
exercised. a supreme control and a dreadful oppression over 
-each of the individual states. 


Events. 


Results. 


§ VII. Dectane ann Downratt or THE Sparran Empire 
on Lanp. 879-862, B.C. 


21. We have thus far traced, on the one hand, the downfall 
of the Spartan empire on the sea, but, on the other, 
the rise of her empire on land to the highest pitch 
of power. We have now to contemplate the decline and down- 
fall of her empire on land. But, before speaking of this, we 
pause to describe the situation of the three principal states of 
Greece at this time, Sparta, Athens and Thebes. © The situation 
Q* 


Introduction. 


18 


of Sparta has already been set forth. She was at the height of 
her power. She ruled supreme over Greece. We shall speak 
of Thebes in connection with the war itself. We will, however, 
enter into some detail of the situation of Athens. 

22. The rebuilding of the Long Walls, and of the fortifica- 
tions of the Pirzus, gave an opportunity to the 
commercial marine of Athens to take a new start. 
Athens made very great progress both in the preparation of a 
naval force, and in the extension of commerce. During the 
Corinthian war, in 387 B. C., we find a fleet of forty triremes, 
under Thrasybulus, in the Hellespont. Indeed, Athens was 
master of the Hellespont, and exacted the duties which were 
charged upon merchant vessels sailing in and out of the Eux- 
ine. Byzantium was in alliance with her, and through the 
aid of Thrasybulus had reéstablished democracy. Besides, her 
influence and power extended to Samothrace, Samos, and the 
cities of Thrace. Her harbor became again the mart of com- 
merce and her merchants were as numerous as before her 
reverses. But it was in the interval between the peace of 
Antalcidas and the present war against Sparta,—387-379, B.C., 
—that she made the greatest progress in maritime affairs. Dur- 
ing this entire period she was free from war. By the peace of 
Antalcidas itself, she became possessed, as we have already 
seen, of Imbros, Lemnos, and Scyros; and afterwards she was 
constantly acquiring tributary dependencies among the smaller 
islands of the Aigean. 7 

It will be convenient in this connection, to speak of the new 
New Confea- confederation which Athens about this time formed 
ἀμ with the islands of the Aigean, and the cities on 
the Thracian coast and on the Hellespont. So preponderating 
had her maritime power now become, that they were quite 
ready to join with her. This new confederation was formed 
on just and equal terms. Each city, great or small, was to 
send one delegate to a congress to be held periodically at 
Athens, and to have an equal vote; Athens was to be presi- 
dent of the confederacy, but each city to be autonomous; a 
common fund was to be raised, with a common naval force, 
through an assessment imposed by the congress and used as 
the congress should direct ; and it was agreed that the general 
object. of the confederation should be to maintain the inde- 


Commerce. 


19 


pendence of each confederate against foreign attack, by their 
combined forces. Moreover, as under the former empire many 
Athenian citizens had been settled as colonists or cleruchs in 
various dependencies, who had lost their property at the close 
of the war, Athens passes a formal decree, barring all revival 
of these suspended rights; and, besides, Athenian citizens are 
forbidden from holding property, either in houses or lands, 
in the territories of any one of the confederates. Thebes be- 
came a member of this confederacy ; so, also, all the cities of 
Eubcea, with one exception, Chios, Mitylene, Byzantium, and 
Rhodes, and many others, though it is impossible to specify 
what ones. After a certain time, there came to be no less than 
seventy cities which sent deputies to the congress at Athens. 
The affairs of Athens were conducted at this time by able 
men ; Iphicrates, Chabrias, Timotheus, and Callistratus. Thra- 
sybulus was dead. Although there was no really great man 
among them, yet they were superior as a whole to the states- 
men and generals of the following age. Thus, has Athens 
arisen to a considerable degree of power and prosperity. A 
new generation of citizens has grown up since the Peloponne- 
sian war, who, unacquainted by experience with the calamities 
of that war, are looking forward with hope and ambition to the 
elevation of Athens to still higher degrees of wealth and power, 
though we must notice some falling off from the ancient Athe- 
nian vigor. We proceed now to speak of the war between 
Thebes and Sparta. 

23. The entire contest between Thebes and Sparta lasted 
from the recovery of the Cadmea in 379, B. C., to the battle of 
Mantinea in 362, B. C..—17 years. But it may be most con- 
veniently divided into two portions. The first portion extends 
to 371, B.C. In this period, Thebes, aided by Athens, was 
enabled to restore the ancient federative system of Bceotia and 
to consolidate her power and train her troops, for the final con- 
test. The second portion embraces the remaining period after 
the peace of 371, B.C., in which Athens withdrew from the 
contest, and Thebes carried on the war alone to a most tri- 
umphant result. | | 

24. The war against Sparta arose out of that great act of 
Thebes and injustice,—the seizure of the Cadmea and its forci- 
Athens. ble retention by a Spartan garrison and harmost. 


20 


The citizens who fled or were driven from Thebes on that ocea- 
sion were hospitably received and sheltered at Athens. In the 
winter of 379, B. C., these exiles starting from Attica surprize 
the Cadmea and expel the Lacedzemonian garrison. Sparta at 
once proclaims war against Thebes. She also demands of 
Athens redress for the support which some of her generals had - 
given to Pelopidas and his party. The redress is given. The 
accused generals are tried and punished. Athens would proba- 
bly have remained neutral in the war, had it not been for the 
attempt of a Spartan named Sphodrias, to seize the Pirseus, in 
the same way as Phebidas had seized the Cadmea. The 
Athenians now in their turn demand redress. But the Spar- 
tans refuse it, and the Athenians at once contract an alliance 
with Thebes and make vigorous preparations for war. 

25. It was determined in the congress of the confederates to 
Proceedings Carry or the war on a large scale, and both by sea 
of the war. and by land. Athens waged the war on the sea, and 
Thebes on the land. _ Athens added many cities and islands to 
her confederacy, such as Abdera, Cephalenia and Corcyra. She 
also gained a decided victory over the Lacedzmonian fleet, in 
the battle of Naxos, which was fought in 376, B. C.;—her first 
naval victory since the Peloponnesian war. Thebes was suc- 
cessful on land, and by 374, B. C,, had driven out all the Lace- 
dzmonian garrisons and harmosts from the Bceotian cities, put 
down the local oligarchies which sustained them, and recon- 
structed the Beeotian confederacy, to which all the cities be- 
longed, with the exception of Orchomenus. We need not de- 
scribe the incidents of the war. We turn now to the separate 
peace made by Athens with Sparta. 

26. It is now eight years since the war began, and Athens 
Peace between has become desirous of peace, partly from the 
Sparta and Athens. burden of the war, and partly from a rising jeal- 
ousy of the Thebans, who had recently attacked the Phocians, 
former allies and friends of Athens, and destroyed Platza. 
Resolutions were finally taken at Athens, and probably in the 
congress of deputies, to propose peace to Sparta. In the spring 
of 371, B.C., envoys from Athens, Thebes, and from various 
members of the Athenian confederacy arrived at Sparta, and a 

treaty of peace was negotiated, on these terms :—that the ~ 
armaments on both sides should be disbanded ; and the har- 


21 


mosts and garrisons every where withdrawn, so that each city 
might enjoy full autonomy. Each city was to be left really 
independent. All the states and cities swore to this peace, ex- 
cept Thebes, who declined the oaths, unless she could be. per- 
mitted to take them in the name of the Beotian confederacy. 
This Sparta refused, and Thebes was left out of the peace. 

27. The war of course continues between Thebes and Sparta. 
Thebes and And, now we come-to the final contest—the contest 
age which ended in the utter and irretrievable ruin of 
the Spartan power. It lasts from 371, B.C., to 361, B.C.; from 
the battle of Leuctra to the peace which followed upon the 
battle of Mantinea. It was supposed, that as Thebes stood 
alone, she must fall at once before the power of Sparta. But 
within twenty days after Epaminondas left the congress at 
Sparta, the battle of Leuctra was fought, and Sparta prostrate. 
Never was there a more complete overthrow. Her ascendancy 
north of the Corinthian gulf ceased at once. Phocis concluded 
an alliance with Thebes; so, also, the cities of Euboea, the Ma- 
lians, the town of Heraclea, together with both branches of the 
Locrians. In Peloponnesus, the results were not less remarka- 
ble. The Spartan garrisons and harmosts at once withdrew 
from all the cities, and returned home. Besides, in all these 
cities there had been decarchies in the interest of Sparta, which 
had been most violent and oppressive. These governments 
were overthrown, and their partisans proscribed. ‘Thus, even 
in Peloponnesus, the empire and dominion of Sparta over the 
states out of Laconia, was quite overthrown. Sparta fell at a 
single blow. Still the war continued for several years. As 
Sparta sought to prevent Athens ever rising again to power, so 
Epaminondas was not satisfied with overthrowing the power of 
Sparta; he laid his plans, and with far-sighted wisdom, to pre- 
vent her from again tyrannizing over Greece. In the fall of 
370, B.C., he entered Peloponnesus with a powerful army, 
and established a permanent barrier against Sparta on her 
western border. The Messenians were recalled, and the city of 
Messene founded. The Arcadians were induced to enter into a 
confederacy and built for its chief city, Megalopolis. Western 
Laconia was enfranchised, and detached from Sparta. Between 
these events and the year 362, B.C., no year passed without 
acts of hostility, though without decisive results. The battle 


22 
of Mantinea was fought in June 862, B.C., and a general peace 
followed the next year, 361, B.C. 

The peace according to the terms of it left every thing in 
statu quo. But how different is the status quo in 361, B.C., 
from that in 379, B.C.! Then Sparta was at the pinnacle of 
her power, and it was questionable whether Thebes could 
stand for a single campaign against her. But now the empire 
of Sparta on land, after a duration of nearly forty-five years, is 
overthrown and Thebes has taken her place. But in order fully 
to understand the state of affairs in Greece at this time, it is 
necessary to be acquainted with the course of Athenian matters, 
during the period in which Thebes and Sparta have been strug- 
gling for mastery. We turn, then, from Thebes and Sparta to 
Athens, 


‘ 


§ VIII. Growrn or Atruentan Power. 371-358, B.C. 


28. The period of Athenian history, which is to pass under 
Period of Athe- review in this section, extends from about the time 
from 371.326, of the battle of Leuctra, down ‘to a period three or 
B.C four years later than the batile of Mantinea. Al- 
though this period stretches a little beyond our first general 
division, into the second—the subjugation of Greece under 
Macedon, which commences with the accession of Philip to the 
throne in 359, B. C_—yet, it constitutes a distinct portion of 
Athenian history, and is better treated of in the present con- 
nection. With its opening, commenced a change in Athenian 
policy, which at its’ close had carried Athens to the highest 
degree of power which she ever attained after the Peloponne- 
sian war. Within the thirteen years of this period, she estab- 
lished her power in the Thracian Chersonese, in the Chalcidian 
peninsula, and in Eubcea. 

The battle of Leuctra had a powerful effect upon the policy 
Change of Of Athens, While the destruction of the Spartan 
Policy. dominion on Jand presented an opportunity for the 
extension of her own power, the growing strength of Thebes 
seemed to impose the necessity of doing it. Indications of 
more extended schemes of policy on the part of Athens ap- 
peared in the congress of the confederates which was held a 
few months after the battle of Leuctra, in September or Octo- 


28 


ber, 3871,.8.., At this congress, Athens caused the peace, 
which had already been sworn at Sparta, to be resworn by the 
confederate cities, under her own presidency and guarantee ;— 
thus silently dethroning Sparta and stepping into her place. 
At the same time, while guaranteeing to every Grecian state, 
great or small, the enjoyment of autonomy, she reserved to 
herself certain cities, as her own; among them certainly Am- 
phipolis, and probably the towns in the Thracian Chersonese, 
and Potidsea in Chalcidice. She did not, however, take im- 
mediate steps towards the accomplishment of her new schemes 
of ambition. The year 371, B.C., was a critical period im 
Greece. Great changes were everywhere in progress. During 
the next year, 370, B. C., the condition of northern Greece was 
altered by the assassination of Jason of Phere, and it would 
not have been prudent for her ablest generals and her principal 
forces to be absent, when it was not certain but that all her 
resources would soon be needed against the overwhelming 
power of Thebes. Indeed, in the winter of the next year, 369, 
B.C., her aid was implored by Sparta, and she sent Iphicrates, 
who after the peace, when he was recalled from Corcyra, had 
been living at Athens as a private citizen, to her assistance. 
But in the spring of this year, Athens begins to carry out her 
plans of reconstructing her former empire. We shall speak of 
her efforts for this object in the following order: first, of her 
efforts in Chalcidice, then, in the Chersonese, and lastly, in 
Eubeea. 

1. In the region of Chalcidice, the first efforts of the Atheni- 
Amphipolis, 408 were directed to Amphipolis, the permanent pos- 
History. ὀ session of which they had been seeking for nearly a 
century. This city was situated on the river Strymon, near 
the Strymonic gulf; its site, near the silver mines of Crenides 
and in the neighborhood of large forests of ship-timber, had 
early attracted the attention of the Athenians. Accordingly, 
they planted a colony there as early as 465, B. C., and again, 
the former having been destroyed, in 437, B.C. But they had 
possession of it only thirteen years, when it was taken from 
them by the Spartans, under Brasidas, in 424, B.C., and they 
were never afterwards able to recover it. Brasidas introduced 
Lacedemonian colonists and was considered as the second 
founder of the city. It remained in possession of the Spartans 


24 


only about three years, till the peace of Nicias in 421, B.C. 
By the terms of this peace, Sparta should have surrendered 
Amphipolis ; she however did no more than withdraw her gar- 
rison, pretending that she was not able to force the inhabitants, 
who were hostile to the Athenians, to surrender their city to 
Athens. Amphipolis, therefore, became independent, and re- 
mained so. ‘Thirty-seven years after, her independence was 
guaranteed by the peace of Antalcidas, in 387, B.C. and, again, 
seventeen years later, by the treaty of peace ‘which was made 
between Athens and Sparta, in 871, B.C. But, notiwithstand: 
Claims of Ing this actual independence of half a century auc 
Athens. these successive guarantees, Athens asserts her claim 
to it. This claim was advanced, as we have seen, in thesynod 
of allies held at Athens, soon after the battle of Leuctra 7. . 
was acceded to by Amyntas, the father of Philip, though he had. 
still less claim than Athens. This claim of Athens could on 
be established by foree of arms; and we proceed to ἜΘΟΣ οὗ 
the war carried on against Amphipolis by Athens. 

The order of events in this war is obscure; in the following 
War against both Grote and Thirlwall concur. First. Iphicrates 
Amphipolis. was sent to the Chalcidian coast. This, as we have 
seen, was in the early part of 369, B.C. He spent most of 
the year in surveying the coast and preparing for future opera- 
tions. He next took part in the civil dissensions, which ran 
high in Macedon. Amyntas, the friend of Athens, had died 
in 370, B.C., a few months after his return from the synod at 
Athens. He left three sons, Alexander, who succeeded him, 
Perdiccas, and Philip, then thirteen years old. Alexander was 
assassinated in 369, B. C., by Ptolemy of Alorus, instigated by 
Eurydice, the widow of Amyntas. Ptolemy, who became re- 
gent of the kingdom, was attacked by Pausanias a pretender 
to the throne, and with such success that he, with Eurydice 
and her two sons, were in danger of being driven from the 
kingdom. Eurydice appeals for aid to Iphicrates, who had 
been adopted by Amyntas as his son. Iphicrates interferes, 
expels Pausanias, and secures the throne to the family of Amyn- 
tas. From this time commenced the campaign of Iphicrates 
against Amphipolis, which lasted three years (368-365, B. C.), 
but was without success. Second. Iphicrates is recalled, and 
is succeeded by Timotheus, son of Conon, who at the same 


20 


time holds a command in the Hellespont. Ptolemy, notwith- 
standing the aid which had been rendered him by Iphicrates, 
had joined the Amphipolitans against Athens. But in 365, 
B. C., Ptolemy was assassinated by Perdiccas, the second son 
of Amyntas. Perdiccas for the first year or two of his reign 
appears to have been friendly to the Athenians, and by his aid 
Timotheus made himself master of Torone, Potidzea, Pydna, 
Methone, and various other places in the Chalcidian peninsula, 
and its neighborhood; but the Athenians were again disap- 
pointed in their hopes of taking Amphipolis. The campaign 
bi Timotheus extended from “midsummer of 364, B.C., to 
midsummer of 363, Β. C."* when he returned to the Helles- 
pont. 3. Timotheus was succeeded by Callisthenes. But Cal- 
listhenes had more to contend against than either of his pred- 
ecessors. For Perdiccas had now turned against the Athenians, 
and joined with the Amphipolitans, who had placed their 
city in his hands. But still, Callisthenes fought with success 
against Perdiccas, and would probably have captured the city, 
had he not been induced to make a truce with him, by his 
promise to abandon the Amphipolitans. The truce enabled 
Perdiccas to recover himself; and he then refused to fulfill his 
engagement, but continued to hold the city against the Atheni- _ 
ans. Affairs remained in this situation till the death of Per- 
diceas, who was slain in a battle against the Ilyrians in 360, 
B.C., and the accession of Philip in 359, B.C. Thus, the 
Athenians lost their only opportunity of getting possession of 
this coveted prize. But the acquisitions of Timotheus in Chal- 
cidice were of great value to them. 

II. We proceed now to speak of the efforts of the Athenians 
in the Thracian-Chersonese. The Athenians took advantage of 
the revolt of Ariobarzanes from the King of Persia, to com- 
mence their operations in the Hellespont. Timotheus was sent 
there, for this purpose, though he was not to do any thing which 
should violate the peace with the king. He, therefore, besieges 
Samos, and takes it somewhere in 366, B.C. For this success, 
Ariobarzanes makes over to him Sestos and Crithote in the 
Chersonese, with a large circumjacent territory. This is his 
first successful step in the recovery of that peninsula. Timo- 


* Grote. Clinton and Thirwall place it in 360, Β, Ο. 
see 


20 


theus soon afterwards got possession of Elzeus and other cities, 
so that the Athenians now claimed the whole Chersonese, 
throughout the entire length of it, including Cardia and several 
independent cities. The Athenians, at the same time, sent 
colonists both to the Chersonese and Samos, thus reviving her 
ancient policy, which she had formally discarded at the forma- 
tion of her new confederacy, and thereby alarming not a little 
her confederates. This recovery of the Chersonese took place 
between 366, B.C., and 364, B.C. From midsummer 364, B.C. 
to midsummer 8368, B. C., ‘Timotheus was in Chalcidice, but in 
363, B. C., returned to the Hellespont. 

But the reoceupation of the Chersonese had brought the 
Athenians into conflict with Cotys, king of Thrace, 
and as that king was now aided by a Theban fleet, 
their newly recovered possessions were in great danger. It was 
on this account that Timotheus returned from Chalcidice to his 
command in the Hellespont. Timotheus was successful against 
Cotys, and during his command, the Athenian possessions con- 
tinued in peace and safety. He returned to Athens in 362, 
B.C. The course of the war after the recall of Timotheus is 
little creditable to the Athenians. The events of it are so ob- 
seure and uninteresting, that we do no more than enumerate 
them. 1. Timotheus was succeeded by Ergophilus, probably 
in the latter part of 362, B.C., who seems not to have carried 
on the war with any efficiency. 2. Ergophilus was succeeded 
by Autocles, who had not only to carry on operations against 
Cotys, but to protect the Proconnesian allies of Athens against 
the attack of the city of Cyzicus, and to provide a safe convoy for 
the corn-fleet from the Euxine, which was endangered on account 
of a prevalent scarcity. 8, Autocles was succeeded by Menon, 
and Menon by Timomachus. But affairs in the Chersonese were 
quite unfavorable to the Athenians. Cotys contrived, in 361- 
360, B. C., to surprize Sestus, the most important place in the 
peninsula. The chronology is obscure, but it is probable that 
these several commands were held between August, 362, B. C., 
and the latter part of 361, B.C. 4. Timomachus was succeeded 
by Cephisodotus. Cotys was now joined by Charidemus, a 
mercenary general who had formerly been in the service of 
Athens, and by their joint forces, the Athenian possessions were 
in great danger. But at this juncture, Cotys is assassinated. 


War with Cotys. 


27 


His young son Cersobleptes succeeds him, who makes Chari- 
demus his principal minister. After seven months of useless 
warfare, Charidemus forces Cephisodotus to conclude a most 
dishonorable convention, which is at. once rejected at Athens. 
Cephisodotus is recalled about the beginning of 359, B.C. It 
does not appear that Athens had any commander in Thrace 
during the whole of this year, nor till the middle of the next 
year, 358, B.C. But, at this time, there were two competitors 
for the throne against Cersobleptes, Berisades and Amadocus— 
who uniting their forces under an Athenian named Athenodo- 
rus, pressed Charidemus so hard that he was finally compelled 
to agree that Thrace should be divided among the three com- 
petitors, and that all three should concur in surrendering the 
Chersonese to Athens, The Athenians upon being informed 
of this, send Chabrias with a single trireme to ratify the. con- 
vention and take possession of the country; but, as they had 
neglected to send the money which Athenodorus had asked for 
the pay of his troops, that. general was compelled to disband 
them. This circumstance emboldened Cersobleptes and Chari- 
demus to disown the convention; they even compel Chabrias 
to accept the former convention. This excites great indignation 
at Athens, and ten commissioners are sent to demand the rati- 
fication of the latter convention, but as they are not accompa- 
nied by a force, they are treated with contempt by Cersobleptes 
and Charidemus. At length, in the latter part of 358, B. Ο,, 
Chares is sent with a sufficient force to compel a ratification of 
the treaty, and at once, the Chersonese is surrendered to the 
Athenians, though Charidemus retains Cardia. We here leave 
the Athenians in quiet possession of the Chersonese, and turn, 
ΠῚ. To their expedition into Eubcea, in which the Athenians 
manifested their old spirit. Although, at the revival of the 
Athenian confederacy in 378, B.C., most of the cities of Euboea 
became confederates, yet after the battle of Leuctra, the island 
passed under Theban supremacy, and throughout the war con- 
tingents served in the army of Epaminondas. But in the year 
358, B.C., the cities became discontented, and Thebes sent over 
a large number of troops to quell the disturbances. The cities 
of Chalcis and Eretria solicited aid from Athens. It was at once 
rendered, and with the greatest zeal. Volunteer trierarchs, of 
whom Demosthenes was one, offer their services. A large force 


28 


was equipped, and landed in the course of a few days in Eubeea; 
in twenty days, the Thebans were defeated, and Eubcea became 
a portion of the Athenian confederacy. A body of mercenaries 
under Chares served in the Athenian army, who after the con- 
clusion of the enterprize, went to Chersonese to take possession, 
as we have already seen, of that peninsula. 

Thus, at the end of the year 358, B.C., Athens was at the 
height of her power, having among her confederates the prin- 
eipal islands of the Aigean, possessing the Chersonese, and 
several cities. in Chalcidice, and now exerting a controlling influ- 
ence over Eubcea. : 


§ IX. Cone.usion. 


30. We here complete our account of the period of Grecian 
history extending from the end of the Peloponnesian war to the 
peace following the battle of Mantinea, 404-361, B.C. Some 
of the events which have been brought into it, occurred three 
years later than the point of time just mentioned, but, not to 
speak of the impossibility of bounding the historical periods of 
different states by precisely the same year, these events had 
their causes within the assigned limit. We have also carried 
forward the entire period to the year 359, B.C., when Philip 
ascended the throne of Macedon, but this was done merely for 
the convenience of chronological arrangement; the period 
properly ends with the peace of 361, B.C. | 

31. With the general peace of 361, B.C., one system of 
Chance in the POlitics may be said to have come to an end, and a 
System of Gre- new one to commence. ‘The results of the Pelo- 
cian politics» »onnesian war are reversed ; Sparta is prostrate, and 
Athens exalted, though neither in external power nor in her 
internal condition is she the Athens of the Peloponnesian pe- 
riod. Almost the only external difference is the increased power 
of Thebes. But the powers and combinations of policy which 
brought about this result have spent their force. Persia in fact 
ended the Peloponnesian war, destroyed the Athenian empire, 
and raised Sparta to dominion. Persia, too, destroyed the 
maritime power of Sparta at the battle of Cnidus, but by the 
peace of Antalcidas rendered stronger than ever her despotism 
on land, But from this peace, Persia ceases to have a control 


i 29 
over Grecian politics; her influence grows less and less, until at 
length Persia is little more than a topic of oratory for Isocrates 
and other Greek rhetoricians. We hear little more of the Gre- 
cian cities in Asia Minor. The leading principle of Grecian 
policy after the peace of Antalcidas, and the political combina- 
tions of the states, were directed either to the confirmation or 
the subversion of Spartan domination in Greece. But this prin- 
ciple and these combinations ceased of necessity with the battle 
of Mantinea and the general peace. A new political period ἡ 
commences. Grecian politics as a whole—the Pan-Hellenic 
system—instead of having reference to Persia, or, as in later 
times, to the supremacy of Athens or Sparta or Thebes, take ἃ - 
new direction ; they turn northwards to Phocis, Thessaly, Mace- 
donia, Thrace. A new power rises into importance—Mace- 
don—and rules for a little while the Grecian world. In Greece 
itself, however, there can hardly be said to be a system of poli- 
tics. Events follow each other, without centering in any one 
grand object. Indeed, it is the want of a system in which all 
Greece should be united under the guidance of some one state, 
that enabled Philip to conquer it, as he did, by piece-meal. It 
was only in the few last months, or rather days, of her freedom, 
that, by the eloquence and statesmanship of Demosthenes, the 


Pan-Hellenic spirit was aroused, and Greeks fought together for -. 


freedom against Macedon, as they had fought against Persia, 
or Sparta. But it was too late-—Greece was subjugated ; and 
we now turn to describe the gloomy period of her subjugation. 


SUBJUGATION OF GREECE UNDER MACEDON. 


§X. Tue Inrerwas Strate or Greece at tur Openine 
or THIS Periop, 359, B. Ὁ. 


82. Externally, at the opening of this period, Greece is pros- 
perous. She has just succeeded in rescuing her freedom trom 
the oppressive tyranny of Sparta. Several of the states have 
_ arrived to a high degree of power. The maritime empire of 
Athens rivals the former empire which was overthrown by the 

3 


80 


Peloponnesian war. Thebes has never been so powerful. But, 
yet, as a whole, Greece has degenerated, nor longer possesses 
Influence of the tHe ability of acting in concert against a foreign 
former Period foe. The very struggle which she had gone through 
4pon the latter. with for independence had prepared her for sub- 
jection. The several states are free, but so fearful of losing 
their freedom, that they will not unite under the lead of any 
one state, even against a common foe. They are independent 
of each other, and, because they are independent, will not look 
beyond their own individual interests, to the common inter- 
ests of the Grecian world, but hope, as Demosthenes expresses 
it, each, in the perils of others, to escape itself. Besides, the 
states are weakened by internal dissensions, and there prevails a 
general deterioration of morals, growing out of long protracted 
wars. In addition, there is, at least in Athens, a decay of the 
military spirit, and a dearth of great military commanders, 
The truth of these assertions will appear, if we consider the 
internal state of Peloponnesus, Thebes, and Athens; and it is 
important to do this, if we would see how it was that almost in 
the moment, of emancipation, Greece became again enslaved— 
that in twenty-three years, the battle of Mantinea was followed 
by the battle of Cheeronea. 

33. Although the states of Peloponnesus were now freed from 
Internal State the dominion of Sparta, they were weakened, dis- 
of Feloponnesus. tracted, and suspicious of each other. Besides, 
the overthrow of the oligarchies which had been upheld by 
Sparta had given rise to bitter civil dissensions, terrible cruelties 
and unappeasible feuds. Thus, it was impossible to form, even 
against a foreign enemy, any new combination of states, in place 
of that which had existed under the headship of Sparta. On 
the contrary, so. suspicious were the other states of Sparta, 
‘prostrate as she was, that they were ready to ally themselves 
with any foreign power, or even enemy of Greece against her; 
and some did actually join Philip. 

34, Thebes had become powerful. Although she had lost 
most of her Peloponnesian allies, she retained her 
allies in Central Greece; the Locrians, the Malians, 
‘the Heracleots, the Phocians, though these last were reluctant 
‘allies, and most of the Thessalians. She had also extended her 
dominion over the whole of Bootia, having appropriated the 


Of Thebes. 


91 


territories. of Coronea and Orchomenus on her northwestern, 
and of Thespiz and Plates on her southwestern borders. Be- 
sides, she had, on the northeastern frontiers of Attica, the im- 
portant town of Oropus, which she had taken during the war. 
But Thebes, in breaking up the free cities of Orchomenus, Co- 
ronea, Platese and Thespiz, and scattering and exiling their 
citizens, had alienated the feelings of the Greeks, and made 
the states hostile towards her. In the death οὗ Epaminondas 
at the battle of Mantinea, she lost all she might otherwise 
have gained from the victory; she lost her only great man, the 
statesman who could have directed her resources in a wise man- 
ner, and united all Greece under her, against Philip. As it was, 
however, Thebes soon after, without necessity and from motives 
of mere revenge, gave rise to a war—the Sacred war—which 
raged for ten years in the heart of Greece, and furnished Philip 
with the occasion and the means of subduing Greece ; indeed, 
Thebes itself codperated with him until the last struggle, when 
it was too late for her to do any thing against him. 

35. We come now to speak of the internal situation of Ath- 
ens, and much more at length. For, it is here we 
find the real causes of the downfall of Grecian free- 
dom. If Athens had been what she once was, Philip would 
never have passed the straits of Thermopyle. 

36. It is to be remarked, however, that this change was not 
in the forms of her constitution and laws, but in the character 
No change in Of the people. With the expulsion of the Thirty, 
Government was restored the popular institutions of Athens; and 
and Laws. from that time to the present, we find the same demo- 
cratic form of government. We meet with the. same large 
senatorial body of Five Hundred, convening daily, with the ex- 
ception of festival days, in the senate house, preparing measures 
to be acted on by the Assembly, and exercising a supermtendance 
over all financial affairs and over all public officers. With the 
same Assembly, composed only of those whose names were en- 
rolled in the registers of the several Demes as born of Athenian 
parents and who had taken the citizens’ oath, meeting regularly 
four times in each prytany, or about once every ten days, and 
exercising the Legislative powers of the state. With the same 
Dikasteries, courts composed of a large body of jurors—some 
hundreds—without judges to instruct them in the laws. With 


Of Athens. 


32 


the same public officers, the ten Archons, the ten Strategi, the 
Logistz and Euthuni, and others, all exposed to the trial of their 
eligibility, and all liable to the trial of accountability. We 
meet with the same carefully formed system of finance; and 
with the same kinds of expenditures; with the same liturgies 
and trierarchies. We also meet with the same forms of trials,— 
the Graphe Paranomon, the trial of unconstitutional laws, and 
the Eisangelia, the prosecution of public offenders. The city 
No change inthe With its public buildings, the number of the citi- 
splendor of city. zens, metics and slaves, its commerce and manu- 
factures, were about the same as in the flourishing days of the 
republic, before the Peloponnesian war. The public buildings 
of the Acropolis with all their splendid works of art, and all 
the public structures, had escaped unharmed the capture of the 
city by Lysander, and the violences of the reign of terror. The 
Long Walls and the fortifications of the Pirzeus, though not 
equal to the former, were sufficiently strong for protection, 
The population was nearly as large as ever. It has been estima- 
ted at 500,000, of which 90,000 were citizens, 45,000 metics, 
or resident foreigners, and the remainder 365,000, slaves. Of 
the whole population, 180,000 has been assigned to the city 
and harbors. Of the 90,000 citizens, about 20,000 would be 
Assembly-men. The large number of resident foreigners, who 
were mainly engaged in commerce and manufactures, indicates 
the material prosperity of the city. 

37. But while there has been no change in government and 
Jaws, and none, except for the better, in the material prosperity 
of the city of Athens, there has been a change, and, in many 
Chance in the Tespects, an improvement, in the character of the 
Character of people. There has been a gradual progress in civil- 
the Athenians. ization, which commenced with the political career 
of Pericles. Commerce had brought great wealth into the city, 
and it had been freely expended in adorning it. The fine arts 
had reached a point of perfection beyond which they never 
went. If by the renown of her schools, the celebrity of her poets 
and philosophers, by the elegance and refinement of her social 
state, she ever deserved, it was now, to make hers the appropri- 
ate name for the literary metropolis of succeeding nations. It 
is true, her most distinguished poets were dead; but Sophocles, 
Euripides and Aristophanes were familiarly known by a near 


88 


tradition; Thucydides must have been remembered by many 
of the citizens ; the memory of Herodotus was fresh, and Xeno- 
phon survived though in exile. But Plato was in the vigor of 
his life, Aristotle was just becoming distinguished, and Dioge- 
nes vented his cynical lectures about the streets upon the man- 
ners of the times. Iszeus, Lysias, and Isocrates were in the 
height of their fame, Demosthenes had already pleaded his first 
eause. It was an age of philosophers and orators rather than 
of poets and historians—the age of reflection which usually 
᾿ succeeds the age of original production. Athens was the re- 
sort of scholars, the school of the arts for all Greece, for the 
islands of the Aigean, and for Asia Minor. She had never seen 
the time, it is probable, when there was so much accumulation 
of wealth in the hands of private individuals, so much refine- 
ment in the style of living among the rich, such general aban- 
donment among other classes, at the theatre, festivals and pub- 
lic games, to the pleasures of life, in a word, so much enjoyment 
of the comforts of peace and commercial prosperity. But an- 
cient civilization, destitute of a religion, which ameliorates the 
barbarities of civilized life, and while increasing the pleasures 
of life, fortifies the heart against being corrupted by them, un- 
protected too by the discoveries of physical science, which 
ancient philosophers despised, but which in modern times have 
placed civilized man far beyond the reach of the uncivilized, 
was destined either to fall before the assaults of barbarous peo- 
ple, or else to perish through the corrupting influence of the 
very blessings it conferred. 

It was very natural under these circumstances for the great 
body of: the citizens to be averse to service in the army and 
fleet. They preferred the duty of jurors in some of the multi- 
tudinous courts of Athens, or the wages of four pence δα] 
penny as legislators in the public Assembly. They were un- 
willing to exchange the lounge in the Forum, the excitement 
of the games and processions, the cheap pleasures of the public 
theatres, for hard labor and poor pay. But this love of peace, 
though arising in part from a proper appreciation of its advan- 
tages, was also the love of idle pleasure. They did not decline 
war because of its calamities, nor did they refuse military service 
because they wished to employ themselves in agriculture, in the 
useful arts and trades, or in manufactures, or in short in any of 


84 


the various modes of industry in which men now engage, for in 
fact their civilization had not produced them; they were un- 
willing to endure the hardships of war, because they could lead 
an easier life. As a nation, they were as ready for war as ever. 

This readiness for war as a nation and this reluctance to en- 
gage in it as individuals, led to two fatal expedients. ‘The first 
was the employment of mercenary troops. If they would have 
war, they must have soldiers and sailors, and unfortunately for 
them, these could be easily obtained. The long protracted wars 
had made martial service a trade or profession. In all parts of 
Greece, there were adventurers with few or more followers, 
ready to serve the best paymaster. They were not free-booters 
or pirates, but men of an honorable profession—the cavalier of 
more modern times, the Dalgetties of the thirty years war. 
During all the contests in the reign of Philip, it was rare to 
find an Athenian citizen in the army or fleet. 

The other great change was the separation of the office of 
the statesman and the general. In former times, a public man 
was both statesman and warrior; he who originated the plan, 
carried it into execution. Epaminondas was the last of this 
race, whose wisdom and eloquence was equalled by bravery and 
generalship. This separation, though it is of great importance 
in modern times, produced many evils. Before, all citizens were 
soldiers, and all public men were generals ; but now, no citizen 
is a soldier, and their ten generals are too often mere militia 
generals, The commanders who were engaged in actual serv- 
ice, were adventurers, who fought for the spodls of war. Hence, 
they acted as they chose abroad, plundering the allies, hiring 
themselves out to execute any enterprize which the hundred 
independent cities on the islands or on the coast, might have 
planned, or else privateering on their own account. On their 
return, they must of course make friends with the people. This 
was done by a profuse expenditure of money, and by hiring the 
orators to defend them under impeachment. Demosthenes 
often complains of these evils. 

38. Such was the character of the people of Athens; refined, 
pleasure-loving, proud, and ambitious of military 
conquests, but without the enterprize and vigor to 
secure them. Such too, was the situation of the several states 
composing the collective Grecian world; with respect to each 


Summary. 


35 


other, jealous and suspicious, standing aloof from common 
enterprizes, and some more ready to join with a foreign foe 
than with their countrymen ἢ and, with respect to their inter- 
- nal situation, degenerate in morals, distracted by bitter feuds 
between the different classes of citizens, and not one, without 
leading men of the oligarchy, who waited only for the oppor- 
tunity to sell their country for gold. Such was the Grecian 
world—ready to be enslaved—at the time its first conqueror 
ascended the throne. 


§ XI. Accrsston or Puruie ΤῸ tHe Turone. 359, B.C. 


39. Philip ascended the throne at the age of twenty-three, 
Character of Which was just the age of Demosthenes. Philip had 
Puilip. been sent as an hostage to Thebes, and was there at 
the time when she was distinguished for her great men. Nor 
ean we doubt but that he profited not a little from the example 
of great military skill he must have been familiar with in the 
exploits of Kpaminondas. Indeed, in the first great battle 
which Philip fought, a battle against the Illyrians in the first 
year of his reign, he employed the same tactics,—strengthening 
one wing for the attack and reserving the other for defense—as 
Epaminondas at Leuctra and Mantinea. In Thebes, also, he 
acquired a knowledge of the Greek language, which he wrote, 
it is said, with accuracy and elegance. Not unlikely he became 
accomplished in all the parts of a Greek education ; philosophy, 
poetry and oratory. He was a brave and skillful soldier, an 
artful diplomatist, an unsafe friend, and a dangerous enemy. 

Philip ascended the throne in 359, B.C. Macedon, which 
Condition of had-never been a kingdom of great power, was re- — 
Macedon. duced at the time of his accession, to a state of ex- 
treme weakness, and was exposed to the danger of utter ruin 
from powerful enemies. On the west, it was threatened by the 
Illyrians, who in a recent battle had slain king Perdiccas with 
four thousand of his troops, on the north and northwest, by the 
great Peonian kingdom, and on the east, by the Thracians. 
Besides, there were several claimants to the throne; two pre- 
tenders, Pausanias and Argzeus, the former of whom was sup- 
ported by a Thracian prince, and the latter by the Athenians ; 
three half-brothers of Philip, Archelaus, Aridzeus and Menelaus ; 


80 


and an infant son of Perdiccas, in whose name Philip exercised 
regal authority. | 

Such was the dangerous situation of Macedon, and such were 
First transactions t2e difficulties which confronted the youthful 
of his reign Philip at the outset of his career; but he en- 
959-368, BC. countered and overcame them all, and never in 
any period of his life did he exhibit more art or a greater power 
of moulding events to his own purposes. With respect to his 
three half-brothers, he puts one to death, the other two escap- 
ing the same fate only by flight. With respect to the two pre- 
tenders to the throne, he foils Pausanias by buying off his 
Thracian supporters, and attacks and defeats Argzeus, and his 
Athenian auxiliaries with him. He next propitiates the Athe- . 
nians, who had been defeated in their efforts to aid Argezeus. 
For this purpose, he dismisses with presents the few Athenians 
whom he had taken prisoners, withdraws the Macedonian gar- 
rison from Amphipolis, and sends a letter to the Athenian peo- 
ple, soliciting peace. Peace was concluded, in which, according 
to Grote, Philip “renounced all claim to Amphipolis and ac- 
knowledged that city as a possession rightfully belonging to — 
the Athenians.” Having thus put out of the way all claimants. 
to the throne, and made peace with the Athenians, he marches 
against the Pzeonians, whom he easily subdues. The Illyrians 
remain, and are a more formidable foe. His campaign against 
them seems to have lasted more than a year, but Philip nally 
triumphs, and dictates terms of peace. This was in the early 
part of 358, B.C. Thus, in the space of little more than a 
year, has Philip defeated all his enemies, and established himself 
firmly on the throne. 

We have now before us the situation both of the Greciaw 
states and of the kingdom of Macedon under Philip, at ‘the 
opening of the period of history which ends in the subjugation 
of the former by the latter. In tracing the events by which, 
either directly or collaterally, this result was brought about, we 
shall be obliged to follow a simple chronological order, almost: 
entirely independent of the relation of cause and effect. 


87 


§ XI. Cownavursts or Pure ΙΝ CHALcIpICE AND IN 
Turace IN 358-354, B. C. 


40. The first enterprise of Philip was naturally directed 
Philip’s first against the Chalcidian peninsula, and the gold mines 
enterprise. of Thrace. The peninsula of Chalcidice is separated 
from the main land of Macedonia, by a range of mountains, 
crossing from the Thermaic to the Strymonic gulf. 
Towards the seaboard, it runs out into three tongues 
of land, divided from each other by the Toronaic and Singitic 
gulfs, and forming three small and,narrow peninsulas, of which 
the eastern is called Acte, the middle Sithonia, and the west- 
ern Pallene. Chalcidice, therefore, from its very situation 
would present itself to Philip as the first object of 
his ambition. Its possession would give him a line 
of sea-coast co-extensive with the territory of Macedonia,—and 
Macedonia had now only a narrow strip of coast on the west- 
ern shore of the Thermaic gulf—and, besides, having been early © 
settled by Greek colonists from Chalcis in Eubcea, (whence its 
name of Chalcidice), and being from its intersecting gulfs well 
situated for commerce, it was farther advanced in wealth and 
refinement than any portion of Macedonia, and was in itself a 
valuable acquisition. The possession of the eastern part, more- 
over, opened to him the valuable mining district of Thrace. 
Political con. Dut the political condition of Chalcidice rendered 
dition of Chal- its conquest no easy matter. The two most import- 
eae ant of its cities were Amphipolis and Olynthus.. Of 
Amphipolis, we have already spoken at length. It was a free 
and independent city, and on terms of friendship with Macedon. 
Olynthus was a powerful city, situated at the head of the Toro- 
naic gulf. It was the ruling city of a large confederation. 
This confederation was formed somewhere about 3938, B. C., but 
in 379, B. C., Olynthus was besieged and taken by the Spar- 
tans, the confederation broken up, and the individual cities 
enrolled as allies of Sparta. But by the time the Athenians 
began to attempt the revival of their empire, Olynthus had re- 
established her confederacy, and gained a controlling influence 
over the peninsula. Amphipolis was in confederation with her, 
and Timotheus, in his expedition in 364, B.C., had carried on 

4 


Chalcidice. 


Importance. 


88 


war against both cities. Athens, as we have seen, had several 
tributary cities in this region; Torone, Potidea, Apollonia, and 
perhaps others. Thus, it will appear that both Olynthus and 
Athens were interested in keeping Philip out of the peninsula 5 
and it is equally evident that Olynthus and Athens united could 
have withstood all Philip’s-encroachments. This state of things 
Art and Policy points out and illustrates the plans and art of Philip. 
of Philip. — Sound policy required Athens to unite with both 
Amphipolis and Olynthus, but these cities had ever been hostile 
to her, and Philip takes advantage of this hostility to prevent 
her from coéperating with them. ‘We proceed to the detail. 
41. Philip first attacks Amphipolis. This is in the latter 
Attack on Am- part of 858, B.C. What pretext he had for this 
phipolis. = attack upon a city with which he had been on 
terms of friendship, we know not; for the real cause, we need 
look no farther than his ambition. Philip presses the siege 
The Amphipo. With great vigor, and the Amphipolitans are driven 
litans ask aid to send envoys to Athens for succor. But Philip 
of Athens, —_ was on the watch, and at the same time sends a 
letter to the Athenians for the purpose of counteracting their 
Which is το Movements. Much in the future history of Greece 
fused. depends upon the answer which the Athenians shall 
give to this entreaty of the Amphipolitans for aid,—so much 
that Demosthenes declares, in one of his Olynthiac orations, 
that if the Athenians had got possession of Amphipolis against 
Philip, they would have been saved from all their subsequent 
calamities. But a fatal refusal is given. We may assign two 
Causes of the causes for this refusal. First, Philip declared in his 
wefasal. letter, as Demosthenes again and again asserts, that 
Amphipolis belonged of right to the Athenians, that he was 
besieging it for them, and, when he had taken it, would deliver 
it into their hands; and, hitherto Philip, as his father Amyn- 
tas, had been a friend. But, still, the promise of Philip was 
too good to be sincere, and the Athenians would have been 
suspicious of it, had it not been for that fatal imactivity and 
love of ease,—the second cause above referred to—which now 
prevail and paralyze all her counsels. The party of ease, led 
by Eubulus and other politicians, who found it easier to gain 
popularity by indulging the people im pleasures and amuse- 
ments than by engaging them in wars for distant possessions, 


89 


had the control at Athens. The Amphipolitans, though aban- 
Capture ofthe doned by the Athenians, still held out against the 
City assaults of Philip, but, betrayed by some of its 
leading citizens who had been bribed by Philip, it soon fell into 
his hands. This is the first’ conquest of Philip, and he here 
employs the same means which he henceforth employs for the 
overthrow of Greece ; force, craft, and bribery. It is needless 
Notdeliveredto to say that Philip did not deliver Amphipolis over 
the Athenians. to the Athenians. The same fatal inaction and love 
ef ease, which permitted Philip to take the city, suffered him 
to keep it. Philip amused the Athenians for a little while with 
apologies for temporary delays, and promises of future delivery, 
until at length no more was said about it, and Amphipolis re- 
mained a portion of Macedon, till Macedon itself was conquered 
by the Romans. 

42. The next important movement of Philip was to form an 
Alliance of Philip alliance with Olynthus. The Olynthians, alarmed. 
with Olynthus. by the capture of Amphipolis, sent embassadors 
to Athens with proposals for a peace and an alliance. Such an 
arrangement was most important. ‘These two cities united could 
have prevented even now the further progress of Philip in the 
peninsula. But Philip is on the alert. His partisans assure 
the Athenians of his continued friendship and of his readiness 
to deliver Amphipolis. They propose, however, to the Atheni- 
ans,—and the very proposal gives to his offer of surrendering 
Amphipolis, a certain appearance of sincerity—that they should 
yield Pydna, which formerly belonged to Macedonia, to him. 
Moreover, the negotiations about Pydna are made a state-secret, 
as the inhabitants of Pydna were hostile to the Macedonians, 
The craft of Philip triumphs over the interests of Athens. The 
proposals of the Olynthians are rejected. Philip gains two 
advantages by these proceedings. He reveals the negotiations 
about Pydna, and thus exasperates a portion of the people of 
Pydna against the Athenians and forms a party m it favorable 
to himself. But much more than this, he has the art to make 
an alliance with the Olynthians himself. As-the condition of 
alliance with Olynthus, he cedes Anthemus, and promises to 
take Potidzea for her. Accordingly, Philip enters now into 
open war against Athens. 


40 


43. Notwithstanding Philip’s recent professions of friendship, 
Amphipolitan #24 notwithstanding he had received no cause of 
Wan, al O4e, complaint against the Athenians, Philip begins open 

ae hostilities. This war is called the “ War about Am- 
phipolis,” and lasts till the general peace of 346, B.C. It is 
however, a state of hostility rather than a formal war. Philip 
Capture of Pyd- first takes Pydna and other places for himself, and . 
na, Potide, ὅσο, then, in conjunction with the Olynthians, besieges 
and captures Potidea for Olynthus. In Pydna. several Athe- 
nian citizens were taken prisoners; some of whom were after- 
wards ransomed by Demosthenes. It does not appear that the 
Athenians made any attempt to aid Pydna, though they might 
have done so. The Potidzeans, however, implore assistance. A 
force of mercenaries is sent, but, as they are without. pay, they 
go elsewhere first, and do not arrive till the city is-taken. In 
this connection, though not in chronological order, we mention 
Brain . the capture of Methone, which took place in 854— 
' 353, B.C. The siege of this city lasted a long 
time ; news of its danger reached Athens in season for her to 
send aid, but the expedition was so long in preparing, that. it 
did not reach Methone, till it was too late. Here, too, there 
were Athenians among the prisoners, some of whom were ran- 
somed by Demosthenes. Thus, has Philip stripped the Athe- 
nians of all their possessions in Chalcidice and on the coast of 
Macedon. It is true, he has not himself come into possession 
of more than three or four cities, but he has planted himself in 
the region, and, as soon as he becomes powerful enough, will 
treat his allies, the Olynthians, as they have aided him to treat — 
the Athenians—strip them of all their possessions. But within 
Of the Mines the period which we have just finished, Philip got 
of Thrace, possession of the gold mines of Crenides, and founded 
Finlpp τη their neighborhood, the city of Philippi. These 
mines were of vast importance to Philip. They yielded annu- 
ally more than a million of dollars, and enabled him both to 
maintain his army and corrupt the demagogues and traiters in 
Greece. | 

We have seen that Athens made but a feeble resistance 
against the progress of Philip. This was owing in part to the 
Social War, as it was called, which she was carrying on during 
this period. We proceed to speak of this war, for, though Philip 
had no hand in it, it served to further his ambitious designs, 


41 


§ XII. Tue Soctan War. 357-355, Β. Ο. 


44. The Social War commenced in the early part of 35 7 
B. C., by the revolt of Cos, Rhodes, Chios and Byzantium, and 
continued till 355, B.C. The causes of this revolt are not 
definitely known, but they probably originated in 
exactions imposed upon the confederates by the Athe- 
nian commanders, who, in the absence of means from Athens, 
had recourse to such spoliations for the support of their troops. 
Indeed, Demosthenes says the allies were more afraid of the 
Athenian friendly forces than of their enemies. The course of 
the events of this war is not well known. [Ὁ will be sufficient 
to say that a peace was negotiated in 355, B.C., by 
which the Athenians recogriize the autonomy, and 
severance from her confederation, of the revolted cities. The 
Social war was a great calamity to the Athenians. It had been 
costly, and her finances were now reduced to a low ebb. She was 
deprived for the future of a large portion of the contributions 
which she received from her allies, and, in general, her power 
was much weakened. Indeed, Athens was in a dangerous situ- 
ation. She had lost her most distinguished generals ; Timotheus 
was living in Chalcis, in exile, where he died in 354, B.C.; 
Iphicrates serves her no longer ; Chabrias was slain during the 
war; and no one is left, but Chares, who, though a brave man, 
was destitute of military talents. 


Causes. 


Results. 


§ XIII. Tue Sacrep or Puoctan War, 357-346, B.C.; 
THE ESTABLISHMENT or Puitip’s POWER IN THESSALY, 
353-352, B.C.; Puiuie τιν Turace, 352-351, B. C.; 
nis FLEET. | 


45. We have seen how opportune for Philip’s purposes was 
the occurrence of the Social War. Nearly contemporaneous 
in its commencement, but lasting much longer, was the Sacred 
or Phocian war. Although Philip had nothing to do with 
originating either of these wars, yet both contributed mate- 
rially to his suecess. The Social war weakened the power of 
Athens, and for the time being, gave Philip an unobstructed 
field of action in Chalcidice; the Sacred war distracted and 

4 


42 


exasperated all the states of Greece, filled the chief parties to it 
with unextinguishable animosities, prepared the way of Philip 
in Thessaly, and finally opened for him a passage through the 
straits of Thermopyle into the heart of Greece. 

46. The Amphictyonic League, one of the most remarkable 
Amphictyonic Institutions of Greece, dates beyond the period of 
League. Origin. authentic history. It was formed by twelve na- 
tions: Dorians, Ionians, Boeotians, Locrians, Phocians, Thessa- 
hans, Phthiotians, Mahans, Perrhzbians, Magnetes, 
Dolopians, Atnianians, or Citzans. The Amphiec- 
tyons were divided into two bodies, a Senate and an Assembly. 
The senate was composed of Pylagore and Hierom- 
nemones. Each nation might send as many deputies 
as it pleased, but each had only two votes. Besides this, there 
was a popular assembly, which was composed of all the people 
who might be present from any of the nations, though each 
nation had an equal vote. This congress of the Amphictyons 
met twice a year; in the spring, at the temple of Apollo at Del- 
phi, and in the autumn at Thermopyle, in the sacred precinct 
of Demeter Amphictyonis. Its principal function was to watch 
over the safety, interests and treasures of the Del- 
phian temple. Occasionally, it aimed at exercising 
a sort of control over the general affairs of Greece. After the 
Crissean, or first sacred war, it took the superintendence of 
the Pythian games, which were celebrated once in four years 
near Delphi. But, in the time we are are now speaking of, it 
had lost its power. While it gave a kind of conse- 
quence to some small states as master of ceremonies 
at the games or festivals, and from the crowds it brought to- 
‘A Political gether, it was a mere tool in the hands of the more 
Engine. —_ powerful states. By this means, its influence became 
most baleful on Greece. It gave rise to three bloody and fatal 
wars, the last of which ended in the complete destruction of 
Grecian freedom. The first was called the Crissean or first 
First Sacrea Sacred war. Crissa was situated on that part of the 
Bet Corinthian gulf, which after the name of the city is 
ealled the Crissean gulf, and was the port at which multitudes 
of pilgrims landed to visit Delphi. On the charge that the city 
practiced violence and extortion against these strangers, the 
League declared war against the Crisseans, and after taking the 


Composition. 


Constitution. 


Functions. 


Present State. 


48 


town, razed it to the ground, choked up its harbor, and turned 
the fruitful plain of Cirrha into a desert. This event was com- 
memorated by the institution of the Pythian games, over which 
the Amphictyonie League presides. This was in 576, B.C. 

47. The second war was called the Sacred, or the Phocian, war. 
Phocian War. [his war was instigated by Thebes. » As early as 
Origin. 370, B.C., the year after the battle of Leuctra, . 
Thebes had made use of the League to forward her own pur- 
poses. It was through her influence that it imposed a fine of 
five hundred talents on Sparta, on account of her seizure of the 
Cadmea. So, now, notwithstanding the recent general peace of 
361, B.C., and notwithstanding the importance of a resting 
time from war for all states, Thebes seeks again through the 
League to gratify her revenge. The Locrians, who are her 
- tools in the matter, bring a charge against the Phocians, that 
they cultivated the consecrated plain of Cirrha, and the Am- 
phictyons impose a heavy fine upon the Phocians, for the sac- 
rilege. This was in 357, B.C. As this fine was not paid, it 
was decreed at the next meeting of the Amphictyons, to make 
war on the Phocians, and to consecrate all-their territory to 
Apollo, as had been done with the Cirrhean plain. 

48. Of the war, thus wantonly and maliciously brought about, 
we can do no more than give a summary of events. 
1. The Phocians do not wait to be attacked. At: 
the instigation and under the guidance of a wealthy and lead- 
ing citizen named. Philomelus, they seize the temple of Delphi, 
and maintain it against the Locrians, who had marched to its 
defense. Philomelus sends envoys to the several states of 
Greece, announcing that he had-seized the temple only for the 
recovery of the ancient privilege of presiding, which the Pho- 
cians claimed, and with a good degree of right, and that the 
treasures should be kept sacred. The seizure of this venerated 
temple was a startling event, and split the Grecian world into 
two bitterly hostile parties. Sparta, Athens, the Peloponnesian 
Acheans, and some other states of Peloponnesus, acknowledge 
the claims of the Phocians and agree to sustain them; but 
Thebes with all the northern states of Greece declared strenu- 
ously agaist them. At first, only the Locrians entered the 
contest against Philomelus. Philomelus, who had collected a 
force of five thousand mercenaries, levied a contribution upon 


Events. 


44 


the inhabitants of Delphi, increased his army, and gave the 
Locrians a thorough defeat. At this point, the war passes from 
its narrow boundaries into a general Grecian war. ‘Thebes puts 
herself at the head of the movement against Phocis. Philo- 
melus now commences to make use of the treasures of the tem- 
ple. With these he offers a much higher pay for soldiers than 
usual—he had already once increased the pay—and collected a 
large army of ten thousand mercenaries. After various vicissi- 
tudes, Philomelus is defeated and slain. 2. Philomelus was 
succeeded by Onomarchus, who, as the Thebans were slack in 
following up their recent victory, was enabled to re-organize the 
Phocian army. He made a still more profuse use of the treas- 
ures of the temple, and soon collected a larger force than ever. 
With this force, he was everywhere successful. He subdued the 
Loerians of Amphissze, the Epicnemidian Locrians, and the ter- 
ritory of the Dorians; he also took Thronium, one of the towns 
which commanded the-pass of Thermopyle, and probably Ni- 
cea and Alponus, which were important ports near it,—and 
Orchomenus in Beeotia. At this point, the scene of the war is 
changed ; and we pass into Thessaly, and describe the state of 
things in that region. 

49. The cities of the Thessalian plain—the most fertile por- 
tion of Greece,—were governed by powerful oli- 
garchical families, with numerous dependent serfs, 
The Aleuade chiefs at Larissa, and the Skopade at Crannon, 
were at one time the most powerful of these. But Jason of 
Phere had more recently taken the lead. As federal leader, or 
tagus, the whole force of Thessaly was united under him, to- 
gether with a large army of mercenaries, so that he was looked 
upon as dangerous to the liberties of Greece. But Jason was 
assassinated in 370, B. C., the year after the battle of Leuctra. 
His brothers, Polyphron and Polydorus, succeeded him. But 
Polydorus was slain by Polyphron, who in turn was slain by 
his nephew, Alexander, and he in his turn, by his wife and her 
brothers. This was in 359, B. C., the year Philip ascended the 
throne. The civil feuds in Thessaly were one of the unfavora- 
ble circumstances, which laid Greece open to Philip’s attacks. 
At the time of the Phocian war, the country was as usual in a 
state of internal conflict. The Aleuadz, too weak to contend 
against Lycophron, who was now despot of Phere, called in 


State of Thessaly. 


45 
Philip. Nothing could have been more opportune. Philip had 


just conquered the last of the Athenian possessions in Macedo- 
nia—the city of Methone—and was now prepared to extend 
his dominion in any direction which would be for his interest. 
He, therefore, readily marched with his forces into Thessaly. 
This turned the scale against Lycophron, and he in turn called 
in Onomarehus. Thus the scene of the Phocian war is trans- 
ferred to Thessaly. : 

50. Onomarchus first sends his brother, Phayllus, with a force 
of seven thousand men, but he is defeated by 
Philip. Onomarchus then marches himself with 
his whole army, and, in two battles, defeats Philip with such 
loss that he withdrew from Thessaly. But Philip after some 
considerable time spent in preparation, returns, and now finds 
himself supported by the Thessalians with much more hearti- 
ness. Lycophron sends for Onomarchus, who marches into 
Thessaly with a large force. The two armies, nearly equal in 
numbers, engage in a desperate conflict, in which Onomarchus 
is defeated and slain, with the loss of six thousand troops killed, 
and three thousand taken prisoners. This defeat destroyed the 
power of Phocis above Thermopyle, and remitted the war for 
a time to the original belligerents. 

51. But the results of the battle were still more important in 
‘Establishment @nother respect ; it made Philip in effect master of 
of Philip’s pow- of Thessaly. For, he at-once besieged and took 
oa, Pheeaeiy. Pherz, which he made a free city, and Pagasex, 
which he kept for himself. The Athenians despatched a force 
to the aid of Pagasze, but it did not arrive till the city was 
taken. Philip thus became master of the Pagasean gulf, the 
principal maritime outlet of Thessaly, and extended his power 
over Magnesia. Besides, the victory gave him renown as the 
great captain of the age, and made him distinguished as the 
avenger of the Delphian god, while he took great pains to pro- 
claim himself as fighting in a sacred cause. Having settled 
matters in Thessaly, Philip attempts to march with his army 
Attempt topass Into Phocis. But, in order to do this, it was ne- 
Thermopyle. essary to force a passage through the straits of 
Thermopyle. Here, however, he is defeated. The Athenians 
are at length aroused, and an armament, composed of Athenian 
citizens, is at once fitted out, which proceeds to Thermopyla, 
and stops the farther progress of Philip in that direction, 


War in Thessaly. 


40 


52. Philip’s victory in Thessaly opened before him new fields 
of conquest. It is not unlikely that in his attempt 
to pass the straits of Thermopyle, he aimed at the 
immediate mastery of Greece. But if so, he was disappointed, 
His failure, however, in one plan, only turned his attention to 
another. Withdrawing, therefore, his army from Thessaly, he 
proceeds at once to Thrace. Philip’s proceedings in Thrace are 
not well known. It seems probable that before this, he had 
made an expedition into Thrace, for Demosthenes speaks of him 
as having besieged the important towns of Abdera and Maro- 
nea, on the coast of Thrace, under circumstances, which points 
to some time during the campaigns in Thessaly. But, however 
this may be, it is certain, that after his repulse at Thermopyle, 
which was in midsummer, 352, B. C., he marched into Thrace, 
where he took part in the disputes between various native 
princes. In November of this year, news reaches Athens that 
he was besieging Herzeum Teichos, which was situated on the 
Propontis, and held by an Athenian garrison, for the protection 
of the corn-trade. The Athenians are alarmed, and, in the 
Assembly, pass psephisms, ordering a property tax to the amount 
of fifty talents to be levied and collected, a fleet of forty triremes 
to be equipped, and that the citizens should serve in person in 
the fleet. But news coming soon after that Philip was sick, 
then that he was dead, they relax their efforts, and it was not 
till September of 351, B.C., that they despatched the expedi- 
tion under Charidemus; and even then, it consisted of only ten 
triremes without soldiers, and with only five talents in money. 
Philip, however, was in reality sick, and was obliged on that 
account, to leave Thrace, sometime in 351, B. C., without ac- 
complishing any thing of importance. | 
53. But Philip’s activity was not confined to the land. In 
Attack on the the earlier years of the war, he suffered much from 
Athenians by the Athenian cruisers, but after the capture of Pa- 
Sea. . . 
gase, when he got possession of the fleet which 
had been col'ected by Jason and Alexander of Phere, and per- 
haps earlier, he began to retaliate upon the Athenians, and by 
his superior activity proved himself almost- a match for the 
Athenians on their favorite element. His triremes levied con- 
tributions on her allies, ravaged the islands of Lemnos and 
Imbros, extended their incursions to the southern Cape of Eu- — 


Philip in Thrace. 


47 


beea, and even ventured into the harbor of Marathon from which 
they carried off as a prize one of the sacred triremes ; besides 
making spoliation on the commerce of the Atgean. 

We here recapitulate the successive steps by which Philip 
mounted to his present height of power, together 
with the dates, though there is doubt as to the accu- 
racy of some of them. In 359, B.C., Philip ascends the throne, 
and in 358, B..C., had firmly established himself in power. In 
the latter part of 358, B. C., he took Amphipolis. Between 
357-355, B. C., he captured Pydna and Potideea, got possession 
of the oeiwes af Crenides, and founded Philippi. In 354, B.C, 
he took Methone. His first campaign in Thessaly was in the 
summer of 353, B. C.; his second, embracing the defeat of 
Onomarchus, the capture of Phere and Pagasz, and his re- 
pulse at Thermopyle, was ended before midsummer of 352, 
B. C., and, perhaps, between 353-352, B.C., was an expedi- 
tion into Thrace. Between 352-351, B. C., he was in Thrace. 
We turn now to speak of Demosthenes, and the state of affairs 
m. Athens. 


Chronology. 


§ XIV. DemostuEenss. 


54. We have now arrived at the period of time, when Demos- 
thenes begins to take a share in public counsels. It is, however, 
several years before his political influence becomes conspicuous, 
He was only about twenty-seven years old, when he delivered 
his first extant address to the Assembly; and Eubulus, Phocion, 
and other older men were now at the head of public affairs, 
and directing the policy of the State. Yet, it is both interest- 
ing and useful to examine these early political harangues. 
They give an idea of the Grecian world at the time, and shew 
the early statesmanship of Demosthenes. The address above 
alluded to, which is called περὶ συμμοριῶν, was delivered in 354, 
Speech onthe B.C., on the following occasion. During the So- 

avy Boards. ¢jg] war, Chares, in order to obtain the means to 
pay his troops, entered, on his own responsibility, into the ser- 
vice of Artabazus, a satrap of Persia, then in revolt, and gained 
a splendid victory over the Persian forces, for which Artabazus 
most liberally rewarded him and enabled him to pay his troops. 
This was in 356, B.C. But reports now reach Athens that 
the Persian king is about to make war upon them, for the aid 


48 


their general had given his revolted satrap. This rumor pro- 
duced great excitement at Athens; and many in the Assembly, 
which was called in consequence, were for summoning a con- 
gress of the Greek states and entering at once into a war 
against Persia. Demosthenes opposes these views, on account 
of the dissensions, and the distrust of each other, which ex- 
isted among the Greeks. He says, the states would not come to 
such a congress, but would seek their own safety and join the 
king himself, so that again the Persian king would become 
arbiter of the rights of the Greeks. Throughout the oration, 
he laments the dissensions among the Grecian states. He 
tells the Assembly, that “ the Greeks themselves are hostile to 
one another, and some, more ready to trust in the king of 
Persia than in their own countrymen :”—“ that the fear of 
the king has not yet become greater than the enmity of some 
of the Greeks to you and to one another ;’—and _ beseeches 
them not “to reveal the degeneracy of the Greeks, by sum- 
moning a congress, when they will not come, and going to war, 
when you are not able.” ‘Instead of declaring war, he advises 
to make preparation, and in case of being attacked, to apply 
for codperation to the other states, who, seeing the Athenian 
ready for the war, would then join them. With respect to 
preparation, he recommends a new classification of the citizens, 
for the more sucessful taxation of property; thus showing in 
his first public speech in the Assembly, the same _ practical 
statemanship which appears in all his orations. But, already 
Demosthenes has uttered the complaints which are repeated 
again and again through all these years of degeneracy,—that 
the rich will not contribute, nor the citizens serve in the army 
or fleet. ‘“ You are richer,” he says, “ than all the other states 
together, yet, those who have wealth are so disposed, that if all 
the orators should announce, ‘that the king was coming, was 
at. hand, and the danger unavoidable, if with the orators 
others should give prophetic warning, not only would they re- 
fuse to contribute, but they would not discover their wealth or 
own that they had it.” And with respect to military service, 
he says, “The first and greatest of all the preparations of war 
is for every man to be willing to bear his part in it. When 
you all counsel alike, and each one thinks it his duty to help 
execute your counsels, you never fail, but when, though you all 


49 


agree in counsel, no one does any thing, supposing that some- 
body else will, nothing succeeds.” He also speaks of Thebes m 
language of forbearance, never heard from other orators, as if 
he foresaw the importance of her friendship. Moreover, he is 
animated with the ancient Athenian spirit, when he says, “it 
would be dishonorable for you even when wronged to punish 
the wrong doer, if in so doing you would put him under the 
power of the barbarian.” In short, in this early oration, we 
find all that sagacity in discerning the weakness of his coun- 
trymen, all that boldness and practical statesmanship in propos- 
ing remedies, all that ancient Athenian passion for the freedom 
of the Greeks—in a word, that true statesmanship, which was 
manifested in the maturity of his powers; the only difference 
being that he had not yet detected the real enemy of Greece. 
For, there is no reference to Philip, though he had already taken 
Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidsea, and perhaps Methone, and only a 
remote allusion to the Phocian war. 

The next year, 353, B. C., in the latter part of it, Demosthe- 
nes delivered the oration for the Megalopolitans. The occasion 
Speech for the Of it was an embassy from Sparta to invoke aid 

egalopolitans against the Arcadians, who had also sent envoys 
to oppose the Spartans. The Spartans, seeing that the Thebans 
were hard pressed by the Phocians, thought the time had ar- 
rived to attempt the recovery of their power in Peloponnesus, 
and they proposed for this purpose a general restoration of the 
former state of things; the’ restoration of Oropus to Athens, 
the autonomy of Orchomenus, Thespiz*® and Platza, and the 
like, looking for herself, to the recovery of Messene and the dis- 
solution of the Arcadian union. The contest became violent 
in the Assembly, some of the public speakers advocating the 
eause of Sparta, others, that of the Megalopolitans. Demos- 
thenes in his speech takes a general view of Peloponnesian 
affairs. He says that neither Sparta or Thebes should be per- 
mitted to attain to supreme power. He sees that Sparta is 
aiming to overthrow the barrier which Epaminondas erécted 
against her in the establishment of Megalopolis and Messene, 
Hie, therefore, opposes the proposition of Sparta. But he is 
equally averse to the farther aggrandizement of Thebes, and 
would, therefore, have Athens take her place, as protector of 
the Arcadians and Messenians. ‘These are the opinions of 8 

5 


δ0 


real statesman—of an Athenian statesman filled with the true 
spirit of Athenian patriotism—but they were not adopted. 

It is noi a little remarkable that the growing power of Phili 
should hitherto have excited no alarm at Athens. The Athe- 
nian statesmen were always on their guard against the king of 
Persia. Demosthenes, in this oration, would not suffer Sparta 
again to rise to power, and would check the aggrandizement of 
Thebes, but he has no reference whatever to Philip.. But within 
a year or two after this oration was delivered, Demosthenes 
saw the real state of things. Philip’s power in Thessaly, his 
attempt to pass Thermopylz, his progress in Thrace, threatening 
the possessions of the Athenians in the Chersonese, opened his 
eyes to the real danger of Greece—the danger of being subju- 
gated by Macedon. ‘This new view, which Demosthenes now 
took of Grecian politics, appeared in his first Philippic, which 
was delivered in the first part of 351, B. C., when Philip was 
in Thrace. In this oration, Demosthenes puts forth the full 
The FirstPhil. Vigor of his style. In none of the subsequent 
ipeee speeches, do we find sentences more pointed, or 
more compacted with thoughts; nor statesmanship wiser or 
bolder, or more comprehensive and systematic. Those, indeed, 
who think the great end of oratory is to attract the admiration 
of the hearers by brilliancy of thought and language, will be 
disappointed, as well as those, who have a still lower view of 
oratory, as a mere instrument of confirming the people in opin- 
ions already entertained, or of leading them against what is 
right and good by appeals to passion and prejudice. But our 
orator is too much in earnest to think of the fame of his ora- 
tory, and too much of a patriot to flatter and deceive. “ Never,” 
he says to the people, “have I sought your favor by saying 
what | was not persuaded was for your good.” The course of 
thought in the oration is simple. The orator first strives to 
remove the despondency which prevails at the present state of | 
affairs. Next, he points out. the causes of failure, and dwells 
upon the reluctance of the people either to contribute of their 
money, or to serve in person in the fleet and army. He, then, © 
lays before the Assembly a systematic plan of action, against 
Philip. For the purpose of showing how plain and practical 
the speech is, we give it. He recommends the equipment οὗ. 
fifty triremes, with transports for one thousand cavalry, for 


51 


emergencies ; and the establishment of a standing force of two 
thousand foot, of whom one quarter should be citizens, and two 
hundred horse, with one quarter citizens, together with suffi- 
cient transports. He then goes through with the particulars 
of the expense, the whole amounting to ninety-two talents, or 
about $100,000, a year. But the smallness of these armaments, 
and the manifest caution with which they are introduced, the 
orator begging the Assembly not to condemn till they had 
heard, is a striking comment upon the supineness of the people. 
Having shown how these forces should be employed, the orator 
concludes with another attempt to arouse the Athenians to 
action; and as we read his energetic periods, we feel as if his 
counsel must have prevailed. But it did not. His political 
influence was as yet weak, and he was opposed by such men as 
Eubulus and Phocion, who encouraged the citizens to persist in 
their inactivity and let matters take their course. We meet, 
too, in this oration, with*the first intimation of a Philippizing 
party in Athens, or, at least, of individual traitors ;—‘ There 
are, there are among ourselves, too many who report every thing 
to him.” The next public speech of Demosthenes related to 
the Olynthian war, and we now turn to that. 


§XV. Paruir’s Conavest or OLYNTHUS AND Cuatcrice, 
350-347, B.C.; Warin Evsaa, 349-846, B.C. 


55. We have heretofore seen how adroitly Philip averted the 
Change of Policy, alliance with Athens, which was proposed by the 
by the Olynthians. Q)lynthians on account of his capture of Amphip- 
olis, and substituted himself as their ally im place of the Athe- 
nians. This alliance, which of course involved them in the 
“ War about Amphipolis,” continued unbroken till Philip’s vic- 

tory over Onomarchus. The growth of his power consequent 
_ upon that victory, and his increased activity in pushing forward 
in every direction, alarmed the Olynthians, and they send en- 
voys to Athens to negotiate a peace. This peace seems to have 
been made before November, 352, B. C., as Demosthenes speaks 
of it as already existing, in his oration against Aristocrates, 
which was delivered between midsummer 352, B.C., and mid- 
summer 351, B.C. They, however, did not propose an alliance, 
as that would have compelled them to join with the Athenians 


52 


in the war against Philip. This partial separation from him 
was not overlooked by Philip, who is said by De- 
mosthenes in his first Philippic to have made ἴῃς 
cursions against Olynthus, probably in the early part of 351, 
B.C. or the latter part of 352, B.C. This state of distrust 
Open War, 350, lasted some months, till Philip at length made 
hae - open war against them, probably towards the 
middle of 350, B.C. The pretext of the war was, that the 
Pretext of the Olynthians harbored his two half-brothers, whom 
eg he wished to-get into his own hands, to kill; the 
Real cause. . 764] cause, his ambition of power and conquest. 
With Olynthus and Chalcidice in his possession, he would be 
master of the whole region, both inland and seacoast, from 
Thrace to Thermopyle. Philip prosecuted his plans, in his 
Mode of Prose. usual modes, which he had now carried to a high 
<a τς degree of perfectness ; bribery, dissimulation and 
force. He does not attack the Olynthian confederacy as a 
body, but under one pretext or another assaults the individual 
cities, all the while disclaiming any hostile purposes against 
Olynthus. At the same time, he manages by bribery and every 
species of corruption, to attach to himself partizans in all the 
cities, ready to betray them into his hands. After having in 
this way captured the thirty-two confederate cities of Chalcidiee, 
he besieges and takes Olynthus, This is the general course of 
events, but it is perhaps impossible to determine the details. 
There is also equal uncertainty as to the order in which the 
Olynuthiac orations were delivered. On the whole, Grote’s ar- 
rangement seems to be the best. But we dwell only upon a 
few points. : 

56. Some time after Philip’s attack upon her confederate 
The First Cities, Olynthus sends an embassy to form an alli- 
Olynthiac. ance with Athens. The alliance was formed, and 
either on this occasion, or soon after, Demosthenes delivers his 
first Olynthiac, or the second in the edited order. This speech 
is a most earnest remonstrance against the inactivity of his 
countrymen, and a stirring appeal to awake, and seize the 
favorable occasion which fortune had unexpectedly presented 
to them. “The men are here who are ready for a war with 
Philip—let us aid them at once.” The orator is evidently 
animated with the hope of now, at last, striking a heavy blow, 
against Philip. But he is disappointed. The Athenians make 


Attacks of Philip. 


53 


the alliance, but send no aid. “They listen to Eubulus, a 
man not at all corrupt, but of simple, conservative routine, 
evading all painful necessities and extraordinary precautions ; 
conciliating the rich by resisting a property tax, and the 
general body of citizens by refusing to meddle with the The- 
oric expenditure.” But soon matters become more urgent, 
and the Olynthians send another embassy, imploring aid. It 
The second Was on this occasion, that» the second Olynthiac 
Olynthiac. was delivered, the first in the usual edited order. 
The orator speaks with greater emphasis than ever of the 
lukewarmness of the citizens, and urges a vote to be passed 
to assist Olynthus ;—to send two armaments, one to preserve 
the cities of Chaleidice for the Olynthians, and the other 
to make a diversion, by attacking Philip at home. He also 
recommends that Athenian envoys should go to Olynthus, 
to watch affairs. He declares that citizens must serve, that 
money must be had, an expedition must be sent. The Athe- 
nians about this time, whether in consequence of this oration 
or not, we do not know, sent a body of foreign mercenaries to 
the aid of the Olynthians and Chalcidians, but without Athe- 
nian citizens, and without pay for the mercenaries. The ex- 
penses of the outfit, however, were defrayed by voluntary con- 
tributions. The expedition was dispatched towards the autumn 
of 350, B. C., and gained at first some considerable advantage. 
The news of this success was received with exultation. The 
The Third Gemagogues laid hold on the opportunity, to flatter 
Olynthiac. {ἢ people with the idea of having rescued Olynthus, 
and humbled Philip. But Demosthenes knew better. He saw 
that now was the very time to put forth renewed exertions, 
whereas there was danger they would give up all farther efforts. 
With the spirit of a true patriot and far-sighted statesman, he 
stood forth in the third Olynthiac—“ one of the most splendid 
harangues ever delivered”—to attempt the ungrateful task of 
moderating their triumphs and urging to increased exertions. 
This oration was delivered in the latter part of 350, B. C., and 
the three, in the last six months of that year. But it does not 
appear that the speech had any immediate effect. 

57. The war continued for the next eighteen months. And 
Armaments of NO doubt, during this time, the Athenians put forth 
the Athenians. strenuous exertions. In the third Philippic, deliv- 

5* 


δ4 


ered six years after, Demosthenes says, that they sent to the war, 
four thousand citizens and ten thousand mercenaries, with fift 
triremes. But all was in vain. Philip pressed the Chalcidians 
Fall of Olyn- More and more. At last he draws near Olynthus, 
aa and sends the terrific message, that either the Olyn- 
thians must quit Olynthus, or he leaye Macedonia. They 
make a desperate resistance, but betrayed by the traitors, Eu- 
thyerates and Lasthenes, Olynthus fell.- His mastery of the 
Chalcidian peninsula thus became complete. The war lasted 
from 350, B. C., to the winter of 347, B. C. 

58. The fall of Olynthus was a terrible calamity. Demos- 
thenes asserts in his third Philippic, that Philip 
raged with such brutality against Olynthus, Me- 
thone, Apollonia, and the thirty-two cities of Chalcidice, that 
“the traveler could scarcely tell whether they had ever been 
inhabited.” The Olynthians, men, women, and children, were 
sold into slavery; their wealth was confiscated, and houses and 
lands and slaves bestowed with a lavish hand on soldiers, offi- 
cers, and hirelings. A%schines, as he reported to the Athenians, 
met with a band of these Olynthian captives, in Peloponnesus 
-—thirty women and children,—whom Philip had given to.one 
Atrestidas as his slaves. But, besides the ruin it brought on 
the Chalcidian peninsula, it was a heavy calamity to the whole 
of Greece. We shall soon see Athens, to use the language of 
Grote, terrified into a peace alike dishonorable and improyi- 
dent, which eyen Demosthenes does not venture to oppose; 
#fschines passing out of a free spoken Athenian citizen into a 
servile worshiper, if not a paid agent, of Philip; and Isoerates, 
once the champion of Pan-hellenie freedom and integrity, os- 
tentatiously proclaiming Philip as the master and arbiter of 
Greece, while persuading him at the same time to use his power 
well for the purpose of conquering Persia. 

59. We turn now to Eubcea. While the Olynthian war was 
War in going on, the Athenians were also engaged in a war 
Bubea. with Eubcea. We haye seen that, in 358, B, C., Ath- 
ens obtained a controlling influence in the island, Since that 
time, the three principal cities, Oreus, Chalcis and Eretria, had 
sent each a member to the synod of confederates at Athens, 
But, Philip, as soon as he got possession of Pagase, at the head 
of the Pagasean gulf opposite Oreus, began to intrigue in the 


Consequences. 


δῦ 


island. Demosthenes in his first Philippic, reads a letter which 
Philip sent into the island, and by the present time, there was 
a Philippizing party in each city. Hostilities broke out about 
the beginning of 349, B. C., at Eretria. An Eretrian, named 
Plutarch, professing to be friendly to Athenian interests, sent to 
Athens for aid.. Demosthenes suspecting that Plutarch was a’ 
traitor in the pay of Philip, opposed the request, but the party 
of Eubulus and Phocion favored it, and Phocion was sent with 
an armament into the island. But he was betrayed. by Plu- 
tarch, and the Athenian troops placed in great danger, but by 
the skill of Phocion, they defeated the enemy and escaped. 
The war continued for some time, though we are not acquainted 
with its details. The hostile parties, however, in the summer 
of 348, B. C., applied for peace. It seems not to have been 
granted, and the Eubceans continued hostile to the Athenians 
until the peace of 346, B. C., when they were left to themselves. 


§XVI. Tue Peace or 346, B.C. 


The next step in the subjugation of Greece was the fatal 
peace of 346, B.C. We shall speak of it under the following 
heads; the Motives on the part both of the Athenians and Philip, 
which led to the negotiation; the Objects aimed at by each 
party; the Negotiation itself; and the immediate Results of 
the peace. 

60. There were several considerations which inclined the 
Motives of the  ‘thenians to peace. 1. They had been en- 
Athenians. gaged in a desultory war with Philip, between 
1. Pheir lil success. ton and eleven years—since his refusal to sur- 
render Amphipolis, and his capture οὗ Pydna in 357, B. C.;— 
and without honor or success. They had failed to reeover Am- 

hipolis, Eubcea was alienated, the commerce of the Aigean 
wisest and the finances of the state exhausted. Philip, on 
the contrary, had been continually growing in power, and now 
ruled supreme over the whole region between Thrace and Ther- 
mopyle, and, with his well trained troops, and with his vast 
resources, collected from the mines of Thrace, the plunder of 
Olynthus and the ravages of his fleet, was prepared and ready 
for farther conquest. A just peace under these circumstances 
would have given Athens an opportunity to put herself in ἃ 


56 


better condition, though she was not so reduced as to be under 
a necessity of making it. But, 2. codperating with this cause, 
©. Their inability to W@S her failure in an attempt which she made, 
form an alliance with after the destruction of Olynthus, to unite the 
the other Greeks. other states in a league against Philip. So far 
from succumbing under that great calamity, the Athenians pre- 
pared for still greater exertions. Even Eubulus and the party 
of ease were aroused. Envoys were sent into several states, to 
stir up the people to action and to unite them in a common 
war for the defense of Greece. Atschines himself went into Pe- 
loponnesus, where he addressed- the Arcadian assembly of Ten 
Thousand, but found an orator from Philip present to oppose 
him, and he failed of success. The other envoys did not suce- 
ceed much better. Although a few embassadors from other 
cities were induced to visit Athens, yet no hearty codperation 
could be formed against Philip;—so distracted were the states 
of Greece. This indifference of the other Greeks to the danger 
of Greece, disheartened Eubulus, A’schines, and others of their 
party, and inclined them to peace; which inclination, under the 
pressure of present circumstances and the prevalent love of ease, 
became general. 

61. But, 3. the situation of the Phocian war made it im- 
3. State ofthe portant to negotiate, if possible, a general peace. 
Phocian war. After the defeat and death of Onomarchus in Thes- 
saly, Phayllus succeeded to the command of the Phocians, 
Aided by Sparta, Achaia, and even Athens, he was able to 
maintain himself against the Thebans, notwithstanding that 
disastrous defeat. Soon after, the war was transferred in part 
to Peloponnesus, where it was carried on for about two years. 
Phayllus died in 351, B. C., and was succeeded by Phalecus, 
under whom the Fhitians stood their ground, and maintained 
possession of Orchomenus, Coronea, Alponus, Thronium, Niczea, 
and Thermopyle. But the Phocians finally fell into dissensions 
among themselves. The temple funds were now exhausted, and . 
the plunder of the temple had grown to be odious, even in 
Phocis, so that a party was formed, which deposed Phalzcus, 
and appointed Deinocrates with two others in his place. Pha 
lecus, however, was soon restored to power. But, notwith- 
standing these intestine feuds, the Phocians were too strong for 
their enemies. But, it was apparent, that the time had come 


57 


for putting an end to the war, which had devastated Greece 
now for nearly eleven years. ‘This might be done in two ways; 
through the intervention either of the Athenians, or of Philip. 
The codperation of Athens and Thebes would have been the 
best for Greece, since it is not unlikely some compromise might 
have been effected, which would tend to soothe the irritation — 
and exasperation of feelings which had grown out of the war. 
Such coéperation was attempted by some of the Athenians, 
among whom was Demosthenes. But the Thebans refused to 
join with the Athenians, and in refusing the aid of the Athe- 
nians, appealed to Philip. The Thessalians joined with them, 
entreating that he would put an end to the war. It was this 
position of affairs, with regard to the Phocian war—when the 
moment, long expected by Philip, had arrived, that he should 
be invoked to put an end to it—that made peace most essential 
to Athens, in order, if possible, to have some part, through ne- 
gotiation, in the pacification of Greece. 

62. But Philip himself was not averse to peace. In order to 
Motives of putan end to the war, it was necessary to pass the 
Ἐν, Straits of Thermopyle, and it was by no means cer- 
tain, should the Athenians support the Phocians with their 
fleet, that he could force the passage. As cautious as brave, 
he was therefore not unwilling to make peace with the Athe- 
nians, in order to deprive the Phocians of their support. Be- 
sides, he hoped, under the cover of a peace, to be better able to 
carry forward his plans of future conquest in Greece and on 
the Hellespont. 

63. We thus see that both the Athenians and Philip are dis- 
posed to negotiate for peace. And the maintenance or the 
Aims of the Overthrow of Grecian freedom depends upon the re- 
Athenians and sult of this negotiation. If the Athenians shall be 
of Philip. able to make peace with Philip on the basis of each 
party retaining what it has, and if Phocis shall be included, then 
Philip will retain his own possessions in Thessaly, Chalcidice, 
and Thrace, but will be kept beyond the Straits of Thermopy- 
le; the Athenians will be secured in their possessions in the 
Chersonese ; Phocis will be saved, and Southern Greece pre- 
served from attack, at least for a time. On the contrary, if 
Philip shall be able to exclude the Phocians, and still make 
peace with the Athenians, then, he would be able to end the 


58 


Phocian war, and in so doing to become master of Thermopyle, 
and leader of the Amphictyonie League. The great point with 
him is, to be in a situation to put an end to the Phocian war, 
and thus become arbiter of the state of affairs growing out of 
such a settlement. Hence, it was the aim of the Athenians to 
wclude the Phocians in the treaty of peace, and of Philip to 
exclude them. Philip saw the state of affairs just as it was, 
and entered upon the negotiation with matured plans; but the 
Athenians were divided in their counsels, and directed mainly 
by the very persons whom Philip had purchased. 

64. We proceed now to detail the successive steps of the 
negotiation. There had been rumors, coming through Eubcea, 
Early Rumor of Of Philip’s desire of a peace, even before the end of 
<y hea the Olynthian war. At the solicitation of a citizen 

of influence by the name of Phrynon, who had 
been captured by.one of Philip’s cruisers and had paid his ran- 
som, the Athenian Assembly sent Phrynon himself, together 
with an envoy, to Philip, in order to recover the money thus 
paid. They were successful, and on their return extolled the 
hospitality and generosity of Philip, and reported that he had 
no wish to continue in hostilities with Athens. In this state of 
Permission to things, Philocrates proposed a decree, granting 
ἀν wees Philip leave, if he chose, to send a herald and em- 
of peace. bassadors to treat of peace. The decree passed 
unanimously, yet, the mover was impeached, but, being de- 
fended by Demosthenes, was acquitted. Philip, however, did 
not avail himself of the opportunity. At the capture of Olyn- 
thus, several Athenians of high standing were taken prisoners, 
Negotiations @nd it was resolved in the Assembly to open indirect 
about release negotiations with Philip for their release. Two dis- 
garage tinguished actors, Neoptolemus and Aristodemus, 
were employed for this purpose. Neoptolemus, on his return, 
reported to the senate the favorable dispositions of Philip; that 
he was desirous not only to be at peace with Athens, but also 
to be admitted into an alliance. This report was made some- 
where in September or October, 347, B.C. About this time, 
the envoys, who had been sent to invite a congress for the form- 
ation of a confederation against Philip, returned, without hav- 
ing accomplished any thing. Phocian affairs had also now 
reached the critical position, already described. It was under 


59 


these circumstances, that about November, the Assembly de- 
Embassy to creed that embassadors should be sent to learn on 
Philip. what terms Philip would make peace; ten Athenian 
envoys, and one from the synod of allies, sitting at Athens; were 
on the embassy, among whom were Philocrates, Demosthenes, 
and dAischines. The envoys left Athens about December, 347, 
B. C., proceeded by sea to Oreus, crossed over to Pagasze and 
went thence, through Larissa, to Pella. They returned about 
the beginning of March, 346, B.C. The only terms on which 
Philip would make peace were that each party 
should retain what it already possessed. Philip 
sent by the envoys a letter addressed to the people of Athens, 
setting forth his good will and readiness for peace and alliance, 
and saying “he would have specified favors he was prepared to 
give them, if he had been sure they would make the alliance.” 
Philip, just as the envoys were leaving Pella, sat out on an ex- 
pedition against Cersobleptes in Thrace, but pledged himself: 
not to attack the Chersonese, until the Athenians should have 
had an opportunity to act on the question of peace. Demos- 
thenes, being senator that year, moved in the senate that the 
Honors to the envoys be crowned with a wreath of honor, and 
Embassadors. dine the next day in the prytaneum. The envoys 
then report their doings to the Assembly. Demosthenes moved 
in this body also, to greet by libation the herald who had ac- 
companied them from Philip, and the Macedonian envoys who 
were expected ; and, also, to assign the envoys seats of honor, © 
at the Dyonisiac festival. He also moved to appoint a meeting 
to discuss the conditions of peace, after the arrival of the 
envoys. - 

65. Antipater and Parmenio, Philip’s envoys, arrived about 
the middie of March, and the Assembly was held on the eight- 
Assembly to Centh and nineteenth of the same month. Philo- 
discuss terms crates stood forth in the Assembly, as the mover of 
of peace. —_ the resolutions on the peace. The resolutions pro- 
posed, first, that there should be peace and alliance between 
Philip and Athens; and that the treaty should include the 
allies of Philip, and the allies of Athens, with the exception of | 
“the Phocians and Halus;” secondly, that the conditions of 
the peace should be, that each party should retain the posses- | 
sions actually in their hands. The proposal of Philocrates in- 


Terms of Peace. 


60 


volved these two questions; whether the Assembly would agree 
to peace and alliance, on the terms specified ? and, if so, whether 
it would permit the Phocians—Halus may be left out of the 
account—to be excluded from the treaty? With regard to the 
first, there does not seem to have been much dispute. Eubulus 
told the Assembly, as Demosthenes reports it—* You must either 
march forthwith to the Pireus, pay direct taxes, and convert the 
Theoric fund into a military one, or vote for the peace and alli- 
ance.” Indeed, no better conditions could have been expected. 
There is no doubt but that Demosthenes was in favor of it. 
But it was the second question, which was the critical one, and 
we are informed by Demostheness that the people compelled 
Philocrates to expunge the expression, “ except the Phocians 
and Halus,” and to say explicitly, “Athens and the allies of | 
the Athenians.” Such was the peace and alliance, which was 
agreed to in the Assembly between Philip and his allies on the 
’ one side, and Athens and her allies, on the other. 

66. On the twenty: fifth of March, an Assembly was held for 
Ratification of the ratification of the treaty, by taking the oaths 
μέλαν igi from the envoys of Philip. This procedure at onee 
the oaths by raised the critical question, as to who are the allies 
the Athenians. of the Athenians. Shall Cersobleptes be considered 
among them? Shall the Phocians? With respeet to Cerso-- 
bleptes, the envoys seem to have made no objection; but with 
respect to the Phocians, they are obliged at last openly to an-_ 
nounce Philip’s determination, not to include them in the treaty. 
Here is the turning point of the whole transaction. Here the 
policy of Philip and the policy of the Athenians come into 
direct collision. Six days before, the Athenians had expressly 
voted, that they would not exclude the Phocians; Phihp now 
declares, that he will not admit them. And here begins to: 
appear the treachery and corruption of Philocrates and Aischi- 
nes, and the craft of Philip. Both Philocrates and Atschines 
must have known from the outset this determination of Philip 
hence Philocrates in the original resolution made his excep- 
tion of the Phociais—and both came prepared to mislead and 
betray the Athenians. They did it in this way. When the 
envoys had announced Philip’s determination, they followed 
them with speeches in which they tell the people, to use the 
‘Janguage of Demosthenes, “that it would not be well for Philip 


61 


openly to receive the Phocians as allies, on account of his pres- 
ent alliance with the Thebans and Thessalians, but that, should 
he become master of events and obtain the peace, he would 
then do every thing which we now wish him to agree in the 
treaty to do.” They assure the people that “Philip was a 
friend of the city, that he would save the Phocians, that he 
would humble the Thebans; moreover, that, if he obtained the 
peace, he would confer what was of more value than Amphipo- 
lis, that he would restore Eubcea and Oropus.” ‘Trusting to the 
assurance of these men that Philip’s exclusion of the Phocians 
was only a matter of form, intended to hoodwink the Thebans 
and Thessalians, and misled by these magnificent promises, the 
Athenians take the fatal resolution, and receive the oaths from. 
Philip’s envoys, “ without the Phocians.” 

67. At the Assembly in which the oaths of ratification were 
ἐουναιδὰ οἱ taken by the Athenians, an embassy, the same which 
pene υν had been sent to learn on what terms Philip would 

' make peace, was appointed to go and take the oaths 
of ratification from Philip, and they were also commissioned to 
promote in other ways the interests of Athens. Demosthenes 
was of course a member of this embassy, but the large majority, 
perhaps all the rest, were partizans of Philip. Philip, how- 
Importance of ever, was not yet ready to ratify the treaty. He 
the delay ofthe desired delay for two objects; to extend his con- 
Philip. quests in Thrace, aud then, after his return, to pre- 
pare for passing Thermopyle. With regard to Thrace, Philip 
With regardto had returned from there sick, in 351, B..C., without 
ΚΣ aca making any conquests. The Olynthian war em- 
ployed him the next two or three years. But at the time the 
embassy was on-their former.visit to Pella, he was about setting 
out on an expedition into that region, where he still was. But, 
at the time the embassy were appointed to receive from him 
the oaths, he had been there but a few days, and, of course, 
needed a longer interval. Hence the importance to him of 
delaying the ratification, but to the Athenians, of hastening it. 
It is true, indeed, he was bound to restore all the places taken 
after his envoys had given the oaths to the Athenians, yet he 
knew well, the Athenians would not dissolve the peace, even if 
Delay of the he did not restore them. But, notwithstanding 
Embassy. — this urgency, the embassy lingered in Athens sey- 

6 


62 


eral days, till at length Demosthenes carried a decree in the 
senate, ordering the embassy to leave forthwith, and directing 
Proxenus, then commanding in Oreus, to transport them 
wheresoever they might learn that Philip was. But the em- 
bassy, although they were compelled to leave Athens and go to 
Oreus, made no farther haste. They never went after Philip in 
Thrace, but after staying a while at Oreus passed over to the 
main land, and continued in Pella, till Phihp returned ;—fifty 
days after they had left Athens, although they might have 
reached Philip, within five or six days of the conclusion of 
the peace in Athens. During the interval, Philip had taken 
Doriscus with other Thracian towns, some of them garrisoned 
by Athenian soldiers, and completely subdued Cersobleptes, 
whose son he brought back. as prisoner and hostage. But 
Philip was not yet ready to take the oaths. He had now only 
secured the means of a future attack upon the Chersonese; he 
wishes farther delay in order to make sure of Thermopyle. 
With regardto And with respect to Thermopyle, he wished to be 
Therimopyle. so near to it with his forces, before the Athenian 
embassadors returned, that the Athenians, even if they should 
determine in the last resort to disregard the peace and support 
the Phocians, would not have time to carry their determination 
into execution. Pella was now the scene of greatest interest im 
Greece. Embassadors were there from Athens, Thebes, Euboea, 
Sparta, and even Phocis; while, near by, was encamped a well- 
trained army, ready for instant action, It was a moment of 
anxiety, fear and hope. The Phocian war was to be ended, but 
how, none knew. Athens, Sparta, Phocis, Thebes, were pros- 
trate before Philip, awaiting his decision, All parties courted 
his favor. The ‘lhebans and Thessalians besought him to pro- 
claim himself openly as the champion of the Amphictyons 
against the Phocians, while the envoys of Phocis, together with 
those from Athens and Sparta, implored interference in their 
behalf. Philip played off the one against the other, filling 
them now with hopes and now with fears—although no clear- 
sighted and unbiassed statesman should have permitted himself 
to. be blinded as to his real purpose—until, at length he was 
ready, and proceeded with his army, the Grecian envoys follow- 
ing in his train, to Pherz, within three days’ march of Ther- 
mopyle.. It was here that the Athenian embassadors adminis- 


63 


tered the oaths to Philip and his allies, among whom was even 
Cardia, on the very borders of Athenian possessions in the Cher- 
sonese. ‘Thus is there peace and alliance between Athens and 
Philip, but with the sacrifice, on the part of Athens, of her an- 
cient allies, the Phocians. | 

68. The envoys arrived at Athens on the thirteenth of June, 
Return of the and at once presented themselves before the senate, 
Embassy. The dissimulation of Philip had not imposed upon 
Demosthenes, nor had the corruption and treachery of Aischines 
and his party escaped his observation. He saw that Philip 
meant to destroy the Phocians, and that he had brought over 
his colleagues to codperate with him. But he did not despair}; 
and, in denouncing the craft of Philip and the unfaithfulness of 
the embassy, he urged upon the senate not to leave the Pho- 
Resolution of Cians to perish without an effort to save them. Tho ~ 
the Senate. senate agree with Demosthenes, and draw up a de- 
cree to be submitted to the Assembly. The Assembly was held 
on the sixteenth of June, and it is almost certain, that, even 
Proceedings of At this late hour, the Athenians, if they had so 
the Assembly. chosen, might have interposed with success. But 
they were cheated into the belief that there was no necessity of 
such interposition—that the Phocians would be saved without 
it. Aischines got possession of the Assembly. Without refer- 
ence to the resolution of the senate, he proceeded at once to 
speak of Philip and his plans. He said “that he had left 
Philip with opinions favorable to their interests in every thing, 
both with regard to Amphictyonic questions and every other 5 
that through his influence with Philip, Thebes was to be be- 
sieged, as they would hear in two or three days, Thespiz and 
Plateea restored, and the treasures of the god demanded, not 
from the Phocians, but the Thebans, who had been the first to 
plot the seizure of the temple; moreover, that there was an- 
other matter arranged by him, but which he would not speak 
of, as some of his colleagues were already envious of him”— 
hinting in this way at Oropus. The Athenians, who had been 
dismayed at first by the near approach of Phitip, were reassured 
by the hopes, thus held out, of obtaining all that they wished 
for, without an effort. At this point of the meeting, Demos- 
thenes attempted to turn the current of feeling. He arose, and 
said he knew nothing of any such matters, and was going on 


64 


to repeat what he had said in the senate, when Aischines and 
Philocrates interrupt him with outcries and jests, in which the 
people join, and will listen to nothing from him. The occasion 
is seized to read a letter which A’schines had brought from 
Philip to apologize for the delay of the embassy, the blame of 
which he affects to take upon himself. Although this letter 
contained not a word about Thebes, or Phocis, or the other 
matters of which A‘schines had spoken, yet, its specious and 
fair-spoken words encourage the Athenians still more; and 
' Philocrates seizes the right moment and moves, that the peace 
and alliance with Macedon shall be perpetual, and that if the 
Phocians do not surrender the temple to the Amphictyons, the 
Athenians will compel them ;—which motion was carried. 
Besides, two letters, which Philip addressed to the Assembly, 
inviting Athenian troops to meet him forthwith at Thermopyle, 
served to blind the Athenians still more, as they seemed to 
evince the cordiality of his feelings, and his disposition to have 
their codperation in his present undertaking. Thus, do the 
Athenians deliberately deliver the Phocians, “ with their hands 
bound behind their backs,” as Demosthenes expresses it, into 
the hands of Philip. 

69. We come now to the sad catastrophe. After the de- 
Immediate results parture of the Athenian envoys, Philip summoned 
of the peace. the Phocian leader, Phalzcus, to surrender Ther- 
mopyle. But Phalzcus had not given up al} hope of aid from 
Athens in the last extremity. He had sent an envoy there to 
learn the final determination of the Assembly, and therefore 
postponed his answer to Philip, till he returned. When he 
heard from him the proceedings of the Assembly of the six- 
teenth of June, and the decree of Philocrates, he gave up in 
despair, and with his army of eight or ten thousand foot and 
one thousand cavalry, on the twenty-third June concluded a 
convention, in which it is agreed that Phalezcus and his mer- 
Surrender of Cenaries, with as many Phocians as chose, might 
Phalecus. leave the country and go where they pleased, but 
that those who remained should be left to the mercy of Philip. 
In accordance with this convention, all the towns in Phocis, 
twenty-two in number, together with Thermopyle, were sur- 


rendered into the power of Philip. Philip had no sooner put — 


an end to the war, than he sided with the Thebans, transferred 


65 


to them a considerable portion of. Phocis, restored Orchomenus 
and Coronea, and made Thebes the head of the Boeotian con- 
Convocation of federacy. Philip soon after convoked anew the 
the Amphicty- Amphictyonic Assembly, which had not met since 
onic League. the seizure of the temple.. The Assembly decree, 
first, that the Phocians should be dispossessed of their place in 
the Assembly as one of the twelve ancient Amphic- 
tyonic races and Philip substituted instead ; secondly, 
that all the rights which the Phocians ever had over the tem- 
ple should be cancelled; and, finally, that the twenty-two towns 
of Phocis should be broken up into villages, and the Phocians: 
be compelled to pay a fine of fifty talents a year, until the 
wealth taken from the temple should be made good. Dreadful 
was the ruin throughout Phocis. Demosthenes describes it as 
he saw it, two years later, in passing through the country: 
“ houses razed to the ground, walls demolished, a country stript 
of its adult population, a few women, little children, and mise- 
rable old men.” Well might he exclaim, “results more dread- 
ful and momentous had never occurred in Greece.” 

70. The news that Philip was in possession of Thermopylz 
Effect in and Phocis, first reached Athens from one of the en- 
Αμιοην, voys, whom they had sent to communicate the decree 
of Philocrates to Philip. He had heard of it at Chalcis in 
Eubcea, and immediately returned. The people, who at the 
time of his arrival were met in Assembly in the Pireeus, were 
overwhelmed with astonishment and terror. It was moved to 
fortify the Pireeus as well as the fortifications in Attica, and to 
bring within the walls all their movaBle property, together with 
the women and children. Not long after, a letter came from 
Philip, communicating what he had done. It was written with 
great skill, expressed much regard for his allies, and promised 
they should reap great advantage from the alliance. This letter 
relieved them from the fear of an immediate attack, and the 
arrival, soon after, of the Athenian prisoners taken at Olynthus 
somewhat reconciled them to their present inglorious situation. 
Greece is now at peace, but enslaved; and no one has done so 
much towards this as the traitor and hireling,—<A‘schines. So 
far from being indignant with Philip for the falsification of all 
his promises and. the disappointment of all his hopes, if he 
really had any,—so far from repenting of what he had doné, 

- 6* | 


Decrees. 


66 


he rejoices in it; he at once set off to visit Philip, and he took 


part in the festivities which celebrated his triumphs over the 
Phocians. 


ὃ XVII. Pertop or tur Peace, 346-340, B. C. 


71, Miserable is the situation of Greece. It is scarcely four 
Situation of years since thirty-two Grecian cities were destroyed 
Greece. by Philip, the inhabitants enslaved or dispersed in 
exile, their property transferred to traitors and hirelings and a 


rude soldiery. And now, not in a remote colony, but in {86 


very bosom of Greece itself, twenty-two cities more have been 
destroyed by the same hand, the jand laid waste, the adult pop- 
ulation of men slain or in exile, and the few remaining women 
and children, and old men reduced to the lowest misery; and, 
what is far more, an ancient Grecian state blotted out of exist- 
ence, and its Barbarian destroyor elected to take its place in the 
most venerable and the most purely Hellenic institution of 
Greece. And it is a coincidence not a little remarkable, that 
the restoration of Athenian citizens who were taken prisoners 
at the former calamity should be the only circumstance which 
mitigates the grief of the Athenians at the latter. 

72. Philip has now the destiny of Greece within his grasp. 
Piansof But he postpones the final blow, till he can give it 
shite with the certainty of success. Athens, he sees, is 
the only Grecian state which can combine the other states in 
unity of action, and he, therefore, directs his efforts, for the next 
five or six years, to two points; first, to unite with himself all 
those states which were “disaffected to Athens, and to form a 
body of partizans in those which were not; and, secondly, to 
make such conquests in Thrace as should lay open the Cher- 
sonese and the Hellespont to his attacks. 

73. Although the Athenians were indignant and exasperated 
Situation and 2t the fraud which through the codperation of paid 
Policy of Ath- partizans in the Athenian Assembly Philip had prac- 
τὰν ticed upon them, yet, they had not lost any of their 
actual possessions, nor were they damaged in their commercial 
prospemy, or weakened in their military and naval resources. 

ut still their situation was rendered much worse by the unex- 
pected results of the peace. Athens was relatively weaker 
through the increased power of Philip. His conquests in 

4 


—- . 


67 
Thrace threatened the Chersonese; his occupation of Ther- 
mopyle gave him command of the passage into Phocis, Boeo- 
tia, and Attica; his now closer alliance with the northern Am- 
phictyonic states, and his mastery of the Amphictyonie league, 
enabled him at will to involve the Grecian world in another sa- 
cred war. Thus it resulted that, though Athens had not actu- 
ally lost any of her possessions, yet she had permitted Philip 
to raise on her very borders, the fortresses from which to assail 
her. But, on the other hand, Athens had learned by the mise- 
rable failure of the peace to distrust the leaders who for the 
last thirteen years had been at the head of affairs, as well as 
the policy which they had recommended. Demosthenes had 
now by long probation approved himself to the people, and by 
the power of his eloquence, and the wisdom of his statesman- 
ship, forced his way to the directorship of affairs. Besides, he 
had now trained up a generation of younger citizens, whom he 
had inspired with his own generous sentiments of liberty. And 
he went on increasing in his power over the Athenians, till at 
length he aroused a pleasure-loving and degenerate age to feel 
.and think and act worthily of their ancestors—of the best days 
of Greece. The policy of Athens is now reversed. It is to 
meet Philip promptly, and at every point where he appears. 
Philip and Demosthenes are pitted against each other, and it 
is interesting to follow them in the contest. The details are 
known principally from the orator himself, but even with his 
aid we can do little more than give the probable order of events, 

It may be remarked here, that in the Oration on the Crown, 
which is a defense of himself as a leading statesman in Grecian 
affairs, he disclaims all responsibility for whatever took place 
before the peacé, and in or immediately after it. He was then 
no more than an opposition speaker in the minority. But, 
after he took the lead of Grecian politics, after he became 
prime minister of state, he acknowledges his accountability and 
is ready to meet it. We turn now to trace the order of events 
during the period of peace, which extends from March, 346, 
B. C., to beyond midsummer, 340, B. C. 

74. In August, 346, B. C., about two months after the sur- 
Philip's presi. ender of Phocis, the Amphictyons appointed Philip 
fency ares Se to preside over the celebration of the Pythian 

en gem<=: games, in conjunction with the Thebans and Thes- 


θ8 


salians. The Athenians, who had been accustomed to send a 
deputation to the festival, consisting of the senate of Five Hund- 
red and the six Thesmothetz archons, now resolve to take no 
notice of the celebration. It was not long after this, it is prob- 
able, that an embassy came to Athens, composed of Thessa- 
Embassy of lians, Macedonians and Thebans, to demand a formal 
Thessalians, approval and recognition of the Amphictyonic de- 

cree, which made Macedon a member of the League. 
This demand was both embarrassing and irritating. It was 
equivalent to a demand that Athenians, the proudest of the 
Hellenic race. should recognize the Macedonians as a pure Helle- 
nic people, whereas they ranked them among the alien races 
whom they termed barbarous. Such a recognition, too, would 
be a kind of endorsement of the Amphictyonic proceeding in 
relation to Phocis. The Assembly was in a state of great ex- 


citement. Some of the speakers were for rejecting the demand - 


as most disgraceful to Athens. -Aischines was driven from the 
Bema. Demosthenes, however, counselled moderation, and, 
such now was his influence, was listened to. His speech re- 
Speech of De- Mains, and is entitled περὶ εἰρήνης. Demosthenes 
mosthenes. treats the question as one of peace or war, and with 
mei εἰρήνην true wisdom shows that the present was no time for 
war. They were weaker, and Philip stronger than before the 
peace; and, besides, an Amphictyonic war would unite all the 
states against her. Ife also strives to depreciate the import- 
ance of the League itself, and ventures to.speak of the folly of 
making war on account of the Shade at Delphi. The oration 
was delivered 346-345, B. C. 

75. The first warlike enterprize of Philip, after the destruc- 
Philip in tion of Phocis and the celebration of the Isthmian 
6: da games, was against the Illyrians, whom he defeats 
and plunders. This was sometime in the last half of 345, B.C. 
We next find him in Thessaly, which he reduces 
more completely under his power. He restores an 
‘ ancient political division of the country into four provinces, and 
places partizans of his own over each tetrarchy. This was 
accomplished by treachery, and Demosthenes mentions two of 
the traitors, Eudicus and Simus. This seems to have been in 
the spring of 344, B.C. Having strengthened his power in 


In Thessaly. 


the north of Greece, he turns to the south, and we meet with - 


his intrigues in Peloponnesus. 


i ee ee αὶ. . 


aa 


* 
i 


69 


76. The obstinacy of Sparta in refusing to acknowledge the 
independence of Messene and Megalopolis, had a 
most fatal effect on Grecian interests. For, now 
that Thebes was prostrate, Philip attempted, and with success, 
to succeed to the sway which was exercised over Peloponnesus 
by Epaminondas. Sparta, notwithstanding her weakness, cher- 
ished the hope of recovering her power, and by so doing, kept 
the other states in continual anxiety. And since Athens had 
refused her aid when they applied for it in 353, B. C., they 
now courted the favor of Philip. Philip declared himself the 
protector of Messene, and called upon the Spartans to renounce 
their claims, and when this was refused, supplied his allies with 
men and money, and threatened to march into Peloponnesus in 
person. This procedure made Philip popular with the confed- 
eracy of which Messene, Megalopolis and Argos were the prin- 
cipal members. Demosthenes mentions in the περὶ 2agumgeo- 
θείας, that several of the Arcadian commonwealths had decreed 
crowns and pillars to Philip. These proceedings produced 
anxiety at Athens, and an embassy, with Demosthenes at the 
head of it, was sent into Peloponnesus to counteract the in- 
Demosthenes in trigues of Philip. Demosthenes went to Messene 
Peloponnesus. and Argos, and perhaps to other places. He 
warned those states to beware of the treachery and bad faith 
of Philip, and referred to his duplicity with respect to the 
Olynthians, and his perfidy towards Athens in the matter of 
Amphipolis. They heard him with applause, but continued in 
their alliance with Philip. Philip, either resenting these charges 
or thinking it a good opportunity to strengthen his interest in 
Peloponnesus, sent an embassy to Athens to complain of these 
charges. It was accompanied by embassies from Messene and 
Argos to expostulate against the countenance Athens gave to 
Sparta. It was on the occasion of this embassy, that the sec- 
ond Philippic was delivered, in the latter half of 
344, B.C. In this oration, Demosthenes aims at 
two things. In the first place, he seeks to convince the Atheni- 
- ans that Philip, notwithstanding the peace, and notwithstanding 
all his fair spoken words and promises, which continued to be 
repeated, was their bitter enemy, and that in his intrigues in 
Peloponnesus, and in all his proceedings he was preparing for 
an attack finally on them. In the next place, he urges the people 


In Peloponnesus. 


Second Philippic. 


70 


not to yield to the complaints of the embassadors, in which he 
was successful; thus establishing the policy of resisting Philip 
wherever he was getting a foothold in Greece. Both in this 
oration and in the one on the Peace, Demosthenes seems to 
move with caution, as if he was not yet fully master of the As- 
sembly. He, however, begins to speak with more boldness 
against those orators in the Assembly who plead for Philip, 
and to threaten prosecutions. Philip gained nothing by this 
embassy, and for the present is baffled in his design on Pelo- 
ponnesus. 

This promptness and firmness of the Athenians in resisting 
his first machinations in Greece, so soon after the disastrous 
peace, alarmed Philip. For, about this time, in the first half 
Attempt of Phiiip Of 843, B.C., he seems to have made some at- 
to couciliate the tempts to conciliate the Athenians. He was not 

τ yet ready to go to war with them, and he had 
learned, from the vigor of their opposition to him in Pelo- 
ponnesus, that they were still able to contend against him 
with success. He would postpone the final contest, and there-. 
fore sends an eloquent Byzantine, named Python, as an envoy 
to Athens to express to the Athenians his friendly disposition 
towards them, to complain of the charges of fraud and treach- 
ery which the orators were perpetually making against him, 
and to make an offer of revising and amending the treaty. 
Python addressed the Assembly, and with much eloquence and 
effect. It was voted in the same Assembly, that two amend- 
ments should be proposed to the treaty. 1. That instead of the 
phrase, “ tach party shall have what they are in possession of,” 
it should read, “ Each shall have his own,” by which the Athe- 
nians hoped to revive their claim to Ampbipolis. 2. That 
“not merely the alhes of Athens and Philip but also all the 
Greeks should be included in the treaty”—aiming to check in 
this way the perpetual encroachments of Philip. It was also, 
voted that Philip should be required to surrender the Thracian 
towns which he had taken after the treaty was sworn to by the 
Athenians. These points seem to have been admitted, or at 
least not objected to, by his embassadors; and an embassy from 
Athens, headed by Hegesippus, a bitter enemy of Philip, was 
sent to present these points for his acceptance. Philip. re- 
fused the first outright, denying that he had made any such 


71 


proposal ; he admitted the second, and offered to submit the 
third to arbitration. It appears, also, that the envoys were in- 
structed to demand possession of Halonesus, an island off the 
north-east coast of Eubeea. ‘This island had made a part of the 
Athenian empire, but the Athenians had been driven from it by 
a pirate named Sostratus. Philip expelled Sostratus from the 
island, but, instead of restoring it to the Athenians, kept it for 
himself. In answer to the envoys, he says, that the island is 
his, but that he will give it to the Athenians, though he would 
not restore it. The attempt to reconstruct the treaty failed, and 
Halonesus remained in the hands of Philip. ‘This embassy was 
in the first part of 343, B.C. 

But Philip can not remain quiet for any considerable length 
of time. He begins again his intrigues in Greece. His _pres- 
ent plan is to secure a passage into Peloponnesus, through a 
faction of his partizans in Megara. It seems 
that the contest between the oligarchies and the 
people had by this time changed into a contest between the 
partizans of Philip and the people. The wealthiest men 
sought the aid of Philip in establishing themselves in power. 
This was the case in Megara. Ptzodorus, one of the most 
distinguished Megarians in wealth, birth and reputation, en- 
tered into a conspiracy with Philip, in which he employed 
the services of Perilaus. But this plot was defeated by the 
activity of the Athenians. The Athenian troops were led by 
Phocion. Defeated in Megara, Philip turns to Epirus. Incited 
by Alexander, brother of Olympias, Philip marches 
into Epirus, and takes the cities of Bucheta, Pando- 
sia and Elatea, which were half Grecian towns in the district 
of Cassopia. But Philip had farther views. His position in 
this district prepared the way for marching against Ambracia 
and Leucas; Ambracia led to Acarnania and A¢tolia,—and he 
had. already won the Aitolians by the promise of taking Nau- 
pactus from the Acheans for them—and once getting a foot- 
hold in Acarnania and Aitolia, he could easily pass over into 
Klis, where he already had partizans. But this scheme of get- 
ting into Peloponnesus was defeated by the energy of the Athe- 
nians. An embassy, headed by Demosthenes, was sent into 
Acarnania and Peloponnesus, with the object’ of forming a 
league against these perpetual encroachments of Philip. They — 


Philip in Megara. 


In Epirus, 


72 


brought promises of aid to Athens from some of the Pelopon- 
nesian states, from Megara, and Acarnania. The Acarnanians 
were hearty in their coéperation, and for their encouragement 
a body of troops was sent to them from Athens. At the same 
time, it is probable, an Athenian force was sent into Magnesia 
in Thessaly under Aristodemus, who was honored on his return 
with a crown proposed by Demosthenes. If this expedition 
was sent at this time, it was intended to act as a diversion and 
recall Phihp from Ambracia and Leucas. However this may 
be, at least, Philip was unsuccessful m his projects in the west 
of Greece. These events took place in the latter part of 343, 
B.C. No farther movements occurred in Peloponnesus till the 
battle of Chezeronea. | 

77. But while Philip was busy in person in the west, his 
-partizans were at work in the east, in Eubeea. Of 
| the three principal cities in this island, Oreus and 
Eretria fell into the hands of the partizans of Philip, In Oreus, 
the mass of the people were under the control of Philistides, 
Philip’s principal adherent, by whom they were persuaded to 
imprison Euphrzus, the opposing leader, as a disturber of the 
peace. Then, taking advantage of this opportunity, Philistides 
introduced a body of Macedonian troops, and thus secured to 
himself the mastery of the city. Euphrzus slew himself in 
prison. . In Eretria, Cleitarchus and others managed in the 
same way; they expelled the leaders of the opposite party, re- 
fused to receive the Athenian envoys, and, introducing a thou- 
sand Macedonian troops under Hipponicus, made themselves 
masters of the city. At the same time, they destroyed the 
fortified seaport of Porthmus, in order to cut off communica- 
tion with Attica. Chalcis, however, seemed to be more friendly 
to Athens, under the guidance of a leading citizen, named 
Callias. These proceedings took place in the latter part of 343, 
B. C. | 

78. In the spring of 342, B.C., Philip went into Thrace, 
where he remained nearly a year. He is preparing 
to strike a heavy blow: . He is getting ready to at- 
tack the Chersonese, and to obtain control of the Hellespont and 
the Euxine. The contest is now becoming closer ;—actual hos- 
tilities, though not yet, are near. The Athenians had sent 


In Eubeea. 


In Thrace. 


out a body of colonists to settle im the Chersonese, who were 


73 


accompanied by a military force under Diopithes, to protect 
them in their possessions. It seems that these settlers and the 
inhabitants of Cardia had come into collision, and the latter 
probably had applied to Philip as his allies, for aid. Philip, 
perhaps on his arrival in Thrace, sent an embassy with a letter 
Embassy from to Athens, and it was on this occasion that the ora- 
Enilip. tion περὶ “Adorvyyoov—atiributed to Demosthenes, 
but probably the speech of Hegesippus—was delivered. The 
letter of Philip, while complaining of the Athenians, was 
Speech on friendly; he offers again to give them the island of 
Halonnesus. F{alonnesus, but denies, with reference to the amend- 
ment of the treaty, that he had given permission to his embas- 
sadors to proffer an amendment, or that they had so stated it, 
Hegesippus proves by a reference to the Athenian archives that 
Philip’s embassadors had made such an offer in his name, 
With respect to the gift of the island, he urges the people to 
refuse it, though it afforded much amusement to Aischines and 
others, that the Athenians should refuse to receive as a gift 
what was already their own by right; and he also dissuades 
from submitting to arbitration. Thus nothing was effected by 
Philip’s embassay. It is not likely Philip expected any thing 
would result from it. The letter was his oration to the Athe- 
nian Assembly in defense of himself against the charges of 
the Athenian orators. 

In the mean time, matters are growing serious in the Cherso- 
nese. The Macedonian troops under pretense of acting in be- 
half of the Cardians overran the Chersonese, while Diopithes 
made excursions out of the peninsula and attacked parts of 
Thrace subject to Philip. Philip sends letters of remonstrance 
Letter from to Athens, though at the very time he was making 
Philip. conquests in Thrace against Cersobleptes, Teres, and 
Sitalces, who had received the honor of Athenian citizenship, 
These letters seem to have produced some effect at Athens, and 
_ the people were disposed to recall Diopithes. It is in this state 

of things that Demosthenes delivers his oration on the Cherso- 
Oration on the Nese, probably in the winter of 341, B.C. This isa 
Chersonese. noble oration, not less dictated by far-sighted states- 
manship than animated with the most powerful eloquence. 
The orator tells the Athenians, that Philip m Thrace is makin 
war on Athens; that it was not for the wretched hamlets in 


τά 


Thrace that he was striving, but for Athenian harbors, and 
dock-yards, and triremes and mines; it was for these he was 
wintering amid the horrors of Thracian tempests. For the first 
time, Demosthenes, in his counsels to act vigorously against 
Philip, triumphs over the inactivity of his countrymen. Diopi- 
thes is not recalled, but left to act according to his own judg- 
ment; and embassadors are sent to Philip to demand that he 
shall cease to war against Cersobleptes. This vigorous proceed- 
ing saved the Chersonese. In the spring of this year (341, B.C.), 
he Third Demosthenes delivered the third Philippic. This is 
Philippic. jn the same strain as the oration on the Chersonese, 
and aims at the same object; only Demosthenes now speaks 
with still stronger emphasis against Philip, and urges with still 
greater vehemence the necessity of immediate action. He 
looks forward to a combination of the Grecian states to save 
Greece from the dominion of Macedon. Nor does he speak in 
vain. Demosthenes is now the leading statesman in Athens} 
the people place confidence in him, and never thereafter with- 
draw it. The period of Athenian history, extending from about 
this time to the battle of Cheronea may be treated of, under 
the general head of the “Administration of Demosthenes.” 


§ XVII. Apministration or Demosrnenes; ΕἾΝΑΙ, 
STRUGGLE. 340-338, B.C. . 


Demosthenes foresaw the impending war, and prepared for it. 
His efforts were directed both to Eubcea, and to the Chersonese 
and Byzantium. 

79. In the last half of 340, B.C., he proposed an embassy, 
Embassy and 220 then an expedition into Eubcea. The forces 
Expedition to were commanded by Phocion, and were successful. 
roe ge Cleitarchus and Philistides, together with the Mace- 
donian troops, were expelled from the island. At the same 
time, through the negotiation of Demosthenes with Callias, a 
new political arrangement was made, by which the connection 
of the cities with the synod of the confederates at Athens was 
renounced, and an Eubcean synod established, having its ses- 
sions at-Chalcis. Besides, Callias, who was a bitter enemy of 
Philip, made incursions into the gulf of Pagase, and captured 
many Macedonian vessels, for which success, public thanks were 


τὸ 
awarded him at Athens. Demosthenes, also, was rewarded 
with a golden crown. 

80. Eubcea being thus secured, Demosthenes next. goes as 
Demosthenesas envoy to the Chersonese and to Byzantium. Be- 
Cho vomce cra Sides consulting with Diopithes, he seeks to win 
Byzantium. back to the friendship of Athens, the important 
city of Byzantium, which had been disaffected towards her 
ever since the Social war. But Byzantium was in alliance with 
Philip, and he was now. urging her to join with him in active 
hostilities against the Athenians. But, Demosthenes, by the 
power of his eloquence, triumphed over these ad- 
verse circumstances, and brought the Byzantines, 
with their allies, the Perinthians, to make an alliance with 
Athens. This success of Demosthenes so exasperated Philip 
Exasperation that he shortly after—a little before midsummer 
of Philip, 840, B.C.—commenced the siege of Perinthus, both 
by sea and land ; at the same time, he let loose his cruisers 
against the Athenian merchantmen. These outrages at last 
Athens declares provoke the Athenians to declare war. Shortly, 
War after midsummer, they pass a formal decree to re- 
move the column on which the treaty stood recorded ;—thus 
declaring war. (This was done probably during the absence 
of Demosthenes on his embassy to Byzantium, since he assert 
that none of the decrees relating to the war were his. About 
Letter from the same time, as is probable, Philip addressed a 
Ben. letter to the Athenian Assembly, enumerating his 
grounds of complaint and ending with a declaration of war. 
And Declara- War is now openly declared by both parties, and it 
tion of War. continues till the peace of Demades in 338, B,C. 
We return to the siege of Perinthus. 

Philip brings thirty thousand men against the city, with an 
Siege of Pe- amount and description of enginery such as had 
rinthus. never been known. On the motion of Demosthe- 
“nes, the Athenians equip a fleet, which was sent to the Helles- 
pont and to the Propontis. Philip pressed the siege with great 
vigor. But the Perinthians were aided not only by the Athe- 
nians and Byzantines, but also by the Persian satraps on the 
Asiatic side of the Propontis. The siege must have lasted 
nearly three months, when Philip withdrew from before the 
city, but appeared of a sudden against Byzantium. The attack 


Success. 


76 


on Byzantium aroused the Athenians to still greater exertions. 
They equip a new and large fleet, and, what was of more con- 
sequence, place it under the command of Phocion. The islands 
also, Cos, Chios, Rhodes, and others, sent assistance, and Philip 
was compelled to raise the siege. He was also defeated by 
Phocion in the Chersonese. Besides, the privateering was 
checked, and grain became uncommonly abundant and cheap 
throughout Greece. Thus had Demosthenes, on the one hand, 
rescued Eubcea from the power of Philip, and made 
it a bulwark of defense before Athens, and, on the 
other, had restored Byzantium to the friendship of the Atheni- 
ans, and prevented the Hellespont, with the grain trade, from 
passing into the hands of Philip; for which, crowns were given 
by Perinthus, and Byzantium and the towns of the Chersonese 
to the people of Athens, and by the people of Athens, a crown 
to Demosthenes. This crown was moved by Aristonicus, and was 
80 popular that no one ventured toimpeach the mover. But, 
besides this, Demosthenes had effected a most important change 
in the trierarchy law,—a law by which the Athenian navy was 
furnished with triremes,—by which change the whole service 
᾿ was made much more effective. This was brought about.prob- 
ably soon after the declaration of war, in the summer of 340, 
B.C. It was under this law and by means of it, that the fleet 
sent out under Phocion was equipped, and during the whole 
war, every thing about the navy was done im season, and the 
fleet did efficient duty. 

81. The siege of Perinthus and Byzantium, and the other 
enterprizes of that campaign occupied the last six months of 
840, B.C. In the spring of 339, B.C., Philip made an expe- 
dition against the Scythians, ravaging the country 
between Mount Heemus and the Danube, and 
bringing away a vast amount of cattle as well as large numbers 
of youthful slaves of both sexes, but on his return over Mount 
Heemus, he was attacked by the Thracian tribe of the Triballi, 
in which attack he lost all his slaves and was himself wounded 
in the thigh. This expedition occupied the first half of this 
year, 339, B.C. But, while he was away an event took place 
which more than compensated Philip for all the losses and dis- 
graces of the war, and which once more placed the destinies of 
Greece in his hands,—another Amphictyonic war. But, before 


Results. 


Philip in Scythia. 


* 


77 


speaking of the war which was thus thrust between Philip and 
Athens, we refer to the uniform success which since the peace . 
had attended the efforts of the Athenians against the intrigues 
and encroachments of Philip. He had made no important 
progress in any direction. Under the guidance of Demosthe- 
nes, Athens had acted with promptness and vigor, and it must 
have been a bitter disappointment to the ardent patriotism of 
Demosthenes, thus to have her career of success interrupted by 
another Sacred War. ! 
Nearly all our information concerning this war is derived 
Amphissean from the rival orators in their orations on the Crown, 
wie The following outline may be gathered from them. 
The quarrel argse between the Amphissean Locrians and Atschi- 
nes, at the session of the Amphictyonic Council, at Delphi, in 
839, B.C.; and hence, the war is called the Amphissean War. 
| We have already seen that the fertile plain of Cirrha 
was consecrated to the Delphian god, by which con- 
secration it was forever prohibited from being cultivated. The 
Amphisseans of Locris, however, had reoceupied and cultivated 
that portion of the plain which lay on their borders, and this use 
had been acquiesced in for a long period. They had thus laid 
᾿ς themselves open to any fanatic that might have occasion to use 
this desecration against them. It so happened that after the 
Phocian war, the Athenians burnished certain shields, which 
had been made out of the spoils of the battle of Plateea and_ 
formally dedicated to the Delphian god, and set them up afresh 
in the temple, without the usual forms of dedication. These 
shields contained an inscription—* Dedicated by the Athenians, 
out of the spoils of Persians and Thebans engaged in joint 
battle against the Greeks”—which was highly offensive to the 
Thebans and Loerians.. These latter, who had been zealous 
partizans with the Thebans in the Phocian war, had prepared, 
out of friendship for the Thebans, to bring a charge of impiety, 
according to A‘schines, against the Athenians for the omission 
of the forms of dedication, and to demand against them a fine 
of fifty talents. This, indeed Demosthenes denies, but that the 
Locrians were indignant at the inscription is certain. Thus 
matters stood at the opening of the session. During the session, 
Aéschines, who was one of the delegates, was rudely assailed 
by one of the Locrians, who neha jar him in a speech, and 
| | 4 


Occasion. 


78 


in a frenzied manner denounced the Athenians as joint erm- 
inals with the Phocians and exclaimed, “turn them out of the 
sacred grounds, like men accursed.” A‘schines, as he says, 
was provoked to uncontrollable anger, and, on the spot and 
without forethought,—as the Cirrhean plain lay right below, 
in full view,—brought home to the Locrians, the charge of 
cultivating the sacred fields. His eloquence aroused the whole 
assembly, and carried them to such a pitch of enthusiasm that 
proclamation was made, “that the whole Delphian population 
of sixteen years old and upwards, bond and free, should assem- 
ble on the next day at dawn, with spades and pickaxes, at the 
Place of Sacrifice, as it was called; that the Hieromnemones 
and Pylagore should come to the same place to aid the god 
and the sacred land; that whatever city should be absent 
should be excluded from the temple and be accursed.” At 


day-break, the entire Delphian people, with the Amphictyons 


at their head, marched down to the plain, and destroyed the 
harbor and set fire to the houses. But on their return, they 
were attacked by the Amphisseans, and escaped only by run- 
ning. On the next day, Cottyphus, President. of the Council, 
called an Assembly, that is, a meeting not only of the Hierom- 
nemones and Pylagorz but also of all persons who were at 
Delphi, sacrificing and consulting the god. The Assembly vote, 
that the Hieromnemones should meet at a specified time before 
the next regular session at Thermopyle, bringing with them 
from their respective cities a decree to punish the Locrians for 
their sin against the god, the sacred land, and the Amphic- 
tyons. bts | 

‘Thus the train is laid for another Amphictyonic war—and 
within six or seven years after that fatal war, which had devas- 
tated Greece for ten years, and in the end opened it to the inroad 
of Philip. But, still, Auschines upon narrating to the Athenian 
Assembly what he had done, was well received, though Demos- 
thenes at once foresaw the danger, and exclaimed—* You bring 
war into Greece, Aischines, an Amphictyonic war.” But Ats- 
chines had packed the Assembly with his partizans, as Demos- 
thenes charges, and they would not listen to him. His views, 
however, soon prevailed, and a decree, moved by him, is passed, 
that the delegates should not go to the extraordinary meeting 
at Thermopyle. The meeting is held. The Theban as well as 


ἢ 
' 
Ϊ 
Ἷ 
ἢ 
q 


as ee a - 


a a a ee ee 


79 


the Athenian delegates were absent. The Assembly, however, 
The war de- Vote to make war against the Amphisseans, and 
ae ls chose Cottyphus, gener: ΤᾺ]. Cottyphus failed of suc- 
cess, and at the next regular meeting of the Council at Ther- 
mopyle in September, 339, B. C., by previous arrangements, 
Philip was chosen general of the Amphictyonic forces. 

Demosthenes charges A’schines with corruption and treach- 
ery in getting up this war. Whether this is true or not, can 
not be determined, but it is certain, that.if A%schines had been 
acting in his pay, he,could have done nothing so favorable to 
the ambition of Philip, and so fatal to the freedom of Greece, 
as this new Amphictyonic war of which he was the author and 
promoter. . 

Philip, who had just returned from his Scythian expedition, 
was ready to engage in this new enterprize. Having collected 
a force, he marched through Thermopylz, took Nicza, one of 
the towns most essential to the security of the pass, from the 
Thebans and put it into the hands of the Thessalians, passed 
on to Phocis, which it was necessary for him to do on his way 
Seizure of to Amphissa, but stopped at Elatea, and fortified it. 
ie ioe This town commanded the passage into Beeotia and 
thence into Attica, and it was equivalent to a declaration of 
carrying the war into those countries, for. him to stop at that 
post. It was so regarded at Thebes and at Athens. Indeed, 
Philip soon threw off all disguise and openly declared that he 
had come to carry the war into Attica, This was a sad thing 
for Athens. It must have wrung the soul of a patriot like De- 
mosthenes with agony, to see all the triumphs of the Athe- 
nians over Philip in the Hellespont and Byzantium made una- 
vailing, and the war transferred from a theater where Athens 
had every ground to expect success, into the heart of Greece. 
But still he did not despair. The news of the seizure of Elatea 
Consternation filled Athens with consternation, and in the Assembly 
in Athens. held at dawn, on the next morning after its arrival, 
none of the statesmen dared to propose what should be done. 
Demosthenes came forward. He spoke words of encourage- 
Advice of De- ment. He proposed to send forth troops at once to 
mosthenes. Hleusis, and to form an alliance with Thebes. The 
troops were sent, and he himself went as embassador to Thebes. 
Here everything was against him; the presence of embassa- 


80 


dors from Philip, and among them the eloquent Pytho, the 
nearness of the Macedonian troops, and the long and ancient 
hostilities of Thebes towards Athens. But Demosthenes tri- 
umphed—a triumph of eloquence only equalled by his triumph 
at Byzantium. An alliance is formed, and Athenian troops 
marched to Thebes. The influence of Demosthenes continues 
to increase, and his ascendancy gives a vigor to the counsels of 
Athens, which they had not known since the Peloponnesian 
war. And now for the first time he succeeds in converting the 
Theorie fund to military purposes. Philip was much disap- 
pointed at the alliance between Thebes and Athens, and thought 
it expedient to reassume his pretence of acting in behalf of the 
Amphictyons against Amphissa. Accordingly he writes to his 
allies in Peloponnesus to join him for this specific object. The 
; war was carried on, in Phocis and on the borders of 
Beeotia, during the fall and winter of 339-338, B.C. 
The Athenians and Thebans not only maintain their ground 
against Philip, but gain some advantages over him, especially 
in two battles, called by Demosthenes the battle of the river, 
and the battle in the winter. There were great rejoicing on ac- 
count of these successes, and to Demosthenes was voted a 
crown, which was proclaimed at the Dionysiac festival of 
March, 338, B.C. Besides, the Athenians and Thebans now 
reconstructed the Phocians as an independent state, and Am- 
brysus on the southwestern portion of Phocis was fortified with 
great care. Indeed, the war was carried on for some months 
on a large scale and with considerable success, but was brought 
to a sudden termination by the fatal battle of Cheeronea, which 
_ was fought in August, 338, B. C. But we are not acquainted 
with the intermediate events. 
' The battle of Cheeronea was a hard fought battle. The num- 
ber of Philip’s army is stated by Diodorus to 
have been thirty thousand foot and two thousand 
horse, besides troops from the Thessalians-and his other allies. 
The numbers opposed to him are not known. The Athenians 
furnished the largest number under Lysicles and Chares; next, 


Events. 


Battle of Cheronea. 


the Thebans, and then the Phocians, Acheans, and Corinthians. | 


The Lacedzmonians, Messenians, Arcadians, Eleans, and Arge- 


ians took no part in the war; the last four on account of their - 


“ 


—- 


81 


fear that Sparta would seek the protection of Philip, or, at least, 
avoid his enmity. The omens were pronounced unfavorable, 
but Demosthenes declaring the Delphian priestess had philip- 
pized, refused, like Epaminondas before the battle of Leuctra, to 
regard them. On the field of battle, Philip commanded a 
chosen body of troops, on the wing opposed to the Athenians, 
Alexander commanded on the wing opposed to the Thebans. 
The Theban phalanx which under Epaminondas had conquered 
at Leuctra and Mantinea, strove in vain against the phalanx of 
the Macedonians ; so desperate was the contest that the Sacred 
Band perished toa man. ‘The Athenians in their wing fought 
with ardor and obstinacy, and were at first successful, but could 
not hold out against the well-trained and hardened forces of 
Philip. After a long struggle, the allied forces were defeated. 
One thousand Athenian citizens perished, and two thousand — 
were taken prisoners. The loss of the Thebans was equally 
great. 

82. The news of the defeat filled Athens with consternation ; 
Proceedings at but there was no despair. The people, without 
Atom. waiting to be called, met at once in Assembly, and 
made preparations for defense. The whole body of citizens 
were placed under arms; none were exempted, and it was made 
treason to flee. Citizens, who had been disfranchised by judi- 
cial sentence, were restored to the full rights of citizenship, and 
the metics, or resident foreigners, received the same privilege. 
_ The slaves, also, who could aid in the defense of the city, were 
enfranchised. Families in the country were ordered to repair, 
with their property, into the several strongholds in Attica; the 
fortifications of the harbor of the Pirzeus were entrusted to the 
Senate ; the citizens at large engaged in repairing the walls and 
fortifications of the city itself. The groves near the city were 
felled, and the stones taken from the tombs, to furnish materi- 
als for the repairs; while the wealthy citizens came forward 
with large contributions to pay the expenditures. ‘The decrees 
authorizing these various preparations of defense, were most of 
them proposed by Demosthenes. Indeed, he had lost none of 
his influence with the people, notwithstanding the failure of his 
measures, but continued to exercise the same directorship of 
affairs as before. 


- 


82 


83. While Athens was thus preparing to defend herself, ἡ 
Procedure of Philip was drawing nearer and nearer to the city. 
sis: ν Philip treated the Thebans with great severity. He 
sold all his Theban captives into slavery, and, after he got pos- 
session of the city, put to death several leading citizens and 
banished others, at the same’ time confiscating the property of 
both the slain and the exiles. He overthrew the existing gov- 
ernment, and established a despotism of Three Hundred se- 
lected from his own partizans, whom he supported and con- 
trolled by a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea. He, also, 
overthrew the Bceotian confederacy, and made Orchomenus, 
Platzea and other towns, independent of Thebes. 

84, Philip’s treatment of the Athenians was not less charac- 
Philip’s propo- teristic than his cruelty towards the Thebans. He 
' fals of peace. nrofessed himself willing to make a treaty of peace 
with them. His offer, however, was dictated by considerations 
of policy. In the first place, it was by no means 
certain that he could take the city, or, at least, with- 
out great difficulty ; for it was well fortified, its fleet commanded 
the sea, and a protracted siege would enable the Athenians to 
combine other states against him. And, in the second place, 
Philip was now anxious to set out upon his long cherished ex- 
pedition against Persia, and he wished in that expedition to be 
acknowledged as the leader and head of the Grecian world. 
Hence, with an appearance of great generosity, he 
offers to restore his two thousand Athenian prisoners 
without ransom, and to deliver Oropus, which the Athenians 
had so long coveted, into their hands; but he requires that 
Athens shall acknowledge him as the head of the Grecian 
world, and not only so, but promote a like acknowledgment 
from all the other Greeks, in a congress speedily to be assem- 
bled. This is asking all that he had ever aspired after, in the 
very height of his ambition ;—to make Athens his tributary, 
and to rule over the Greeks. His policy is no less evident than . 
the generosity, which his Athenian partizans so much lauded. 
These -terms were proposed in the Athenian Assembly by De- 
Peace of De- Mades, and were readily accepted. Hence, the 
ἜΠΟΣ, peace is called the peace οἵ Demades. Soon aiter, 
Philip mastered Acarnania, placed a garrison in Ambracia, and 


Motives. 


‘Terms. 


88 


marched as a conqueror through Peloponnesus. He, then, as- 
Submission of Sembled a congress of Grecian cities at Corinth, in 
all Greece. which he was appointed leader of the united Greeks 
against Persia. Philip was soon after assassinated, and with 
the death of the great destroyer of Grecian freedom, we termin- 
ate our narrative of its fall. 


ὑδε the, 


5 ᾿ r 4 
; ; ον 
4 Pert 
42 rage 

ea me 


as Ἧς δὲ χρυ, 
ive Spee ρον 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tuts Introduction will embrace the following subjects: the 
circumstances under which the Decree of Ctesiphon was _ pro- 
posed, and the character of that decree; the Impeachment of 
Ctesiphon by Aischines, and the character of that impeachment ; 
the Trial, and an account of the Speeches of both Aischines 
and Demosthenes. 

The defeat at Cheronea gave new life to the philippizing 
faction at Athens, while the successful negotiation of the peace 
Decree of had probably acquired for the leaders some consider- 
Ctesiphon. able popularity. This recovered vitality manifests 
itself especially in attacks upon Demosthenes, though at first 
not openly by the leaders, but by underlings, set on by them. 
Every form of action was brought against him, but he was 
acquitted in all of them. But, although the citizens had in 
this indirect way, through the courts, shown their confidence in 
Demosthenes, yet it was desirable to have the deliberate and 
formal judgment of the whole people upon his conduct, partly _ 
to end the annoyance of these petty prosecutions, but princi- 
pally, as a tribute justly due. Accordingly, Ctesiphon offered 
in the senate a Resolution, that “the people of Athens should 
crown Demosthenes with a golden crown.” 

The grounds on which Ctesiphon proposed, that the people 
Grounds of should bestow this Crown, were two; certain specific 
this honor. acts, and the general conduct of Demosthenes, as a 
public man. The specific acts were the gift of three talents 
towards the repair of the walls of the city, and a considerable 
contribution to the Theoric fund. r 

ὡ Ἵν ἃ 


86. 


The hasty repair of the walls, which had been made after 
The Repair the defeat at Cheeronea, in order to defend the city 
of the walls. aoainst an immediate attack, had disclosed the ne- 
cessity of a general and thorough repair. It appears from 
Athenian inscriptions somewhat recently found, that this re- 
building was distributed through five years; that the general 
superintendence of the work was consigned to an architect, by 
whom the wall was divided into ten sections, and each section 
given to one of the tribes; and that each tribe chose some one 
to have the management of the funds, which were given by 
the state for this purpose. Demosthenes was chosen, in the 
first year of the repairs, to this office, by the tribe of Pandionis, 
and supplied the insufficiency of the public funds, by a contri- 
bution of his own. It is to this thorough repair of the walls, 
to which, the contribution of Demosthenes, mentioned in the 
decree of Ctesiphon, refers, and not, as is generally supposed, to 
the hasty repairs just after the battle of Chzeronea. 

The Theorica were public moneys distributed at stated times 
The Theorie Among all the citizens. This money was given, both 
funds. to pay the entrance fee to the theater and the charges 
made upon individual citizens at: the public festivals. At all 
the great festivals, there were not only sacrifices, but proces- 
sions, theatrical exhibitions, and gymnastic contests, the expenses 
of which were defrayed indeed, principally, by the largesses of 
the rich, under the name of liturgies, but in part by fees. The 
sum paid to each individual for the theater was two obols, and 
two obols for each day of a festival up to six obols, but not 
beyond. ‘The sum paid to each individual was called the 
diobely,—dw6edia—and the sums together, expended in this 
way, the Theoric moneys,—t& Gewgrx4—these latter being so 


called, because the distribution in its origin, as established by 


Pericles, was limited to defraying the expenses of the theater. 
This donation of public money may be considered perhaps as 
nothing more than a mode of supporting the public theater and 
maintaining the religious festivals, at the public expense, and 
that in a way peculiarly congenial with the democratic senti- 
ment at Athens. Says Grote, “The expenditure of the Theorie 
fund was essentially religious in its character, incurred only for 
various festivals, and devoted exclusively to the honor of the 
gods. The Theoric fund was. essentially the Church-Fund at 


87 


Athens; that upon which were charged all the expenses incur- 
red by the state in the festivals and the worship of the gods. 
The diobely was given in order to ensure that every citizen 
should have the opportunity of attending the festival, and doing . 
honor to the god. Such an attendance was essential to that 
universal communion which formed a prominent feature of the 
festival. There was no appropriation more thoroughly coming 
home to the common sentiment, more conducive as a binding 
force to the unity of the city, or more productive of satisfaction 
to each individual citizen.’ At first, the Theoric funds were 
taken from the common funds of the state, and were disbursed 
by the common treasurers, the Hellenotamisz, but, afterwards, 
the whole surplus of the annual revenue, after the expenses of 
the civil administration were paid, which by the ancient law 
was to constitute a military fund, was devoted to the Theoric | 
fund, and a board of managers appointed to superintend it. 
By a law of Eubulus, it, was made a capital offense even to 
propose that this fund should be applied to military purposes. 
Demosthenes struggled hard to persuade the people to devote 
this fund to the defense of the state, but did not succeed till 
just before the battle of Cheronea. It seems, however, that ἢ 
the fund had been immediately restored to its former use, and, 
what is more, that Demosthenes had been appointed one of the 
board of managers ;—an incidental proof, under the circum- 
stances, of the still unimpaired confidence of the people. 

The resolution of Ctesiphon, judging from the references in 
Character of the pleadings, was drawn with sound judgment. 
the Resolution. Hspecially, in view of the position which Demos- 
thenes had held towards the Theoric fund, was it prudent to 
bring forward his donation to that fund, which donation itself 
was probably an act of political prudence, although Demosthe- 
nes had always been liberal in his expenditures for the public. 
So, too, the specification of the contribution towards the repairs 
of the walls was well chosen, for that was a great work, of 
which the Athenians might be justly proud. But, still, it was 
his political acts upon which Demosthenes would rest his claims 
to the praise of his countrymen ; and, Ctesiphon, in departing 
from the custom of specifying acts, and alledging the whole 
career of Demosthenes, as, in the spirit of patriotism which 
controlled it, worthy of a crown, though he may haye mul- 


88 


tiplied the chances of defeat, yet, enhanced the glory of tri- 
umph :—his decree would crown the whole life of Demosthenes 
with honor. 

The senate passed the resolution of Ctesiphon, and proceeded 
Impeachment to lay the proposition—the προθούλευμα, as every such 
of Ctesiphon. proposition was called,—before the Assembly. The 
next thing in order would have been for the Assembly to dis- 
cuss and pass upon the senate’s proposition, but this procedure 
was arrested by a declaration, under oath, of Aischines, that he 
intended to prosecute the original, mover of the resolution ; 
which he did. Demosthenes was appointed to superintend the 
funds for the repair of the walls, in 337, B.C.; Ctesiphon 
brought forward his motion sometime in the course of that year ; 
and Aischines commenced the prosecution about the middle of 
336, B.C., before the assassination of Philip. 

In order to understand the nature of this impeachment, it 
will be necessary to examine the mode of making laws at Ath- 
ens, and the difference between a law and a psephism. Changes 
in laws were made with great caution. The proposal of any 
The Nature of DEW law was preceded by a formal abrogation of 
the Impeach- the old one. Nor could any law, whether a new 
ment. . che 
_ one or amending an existing law, be made, unless, 
having been approved by the senate, it was first brought before 
the first regular Assembly of the year; after which, if voted 
by the Assembly, it was submitted to the Nomothetez, with 
whom alone the final decision rested. Thus the laws were in- 
vested with a kind of sacredness; and to produce before the 
judges a fictitious law was punishable with death. A law must 
be distinguished from a psephism. Resolutions passed by the 
Assembly were psephisms, and continued in force only one year. 
It is obvious, however, that these psephisms might contain 
matter in conflict with the laws; and that thus laws might be 
indirectly abrogated, or enacted, in violation of the established 
mode; hence, the importance of providing means of preven- 
tion. This was done by the impeachment of the 
mover of any resolution, containing such matter. 
The writ of impeachment was called the zagavduwy γραφή, the 
use of which was limited to this specific offense. It might be 
brought after the resolution had passed the Assembly, or, as 
was done by Aischines, at its introduction. If the prosecution 


παρανόμων γραφή. 


89 


was successful, the resolution was annulled, and the mover 
fined ; if unsuccessful, the prosecutor was himself fined. 

There were three things in the resolution of Ctesiphon, or in 
connection with it, which were alledged by Aschines to con- 
flict with existing laws. We proceed to enumerate these in the 
order in which Aischines arranged them in the writ. The first 
Grounds. ground of impeachment may be explained as follows. 
1. Falsity ofthe Psephisms are public documents, and it is forbid- 
Resolution. ἄρῃ by law to insert that which is false in public 
documents. But the resolution of Ctesiphon, which, if passed 
by the Assembly, would become a psephism, is virtually a 
public document, and it contains, in the clause which asserts 
Demosthenes to be a good and patriotic citizen, that which is 
. false; in this respect, therefore, it conflicts with existing laws. 
Aischines, it will be observed, denies the fact alledged, as to the 
-public character of Demosthenes, but he infers from it, not that 
the crown should be refused Demosthenes, as being unworthy 
of it, but that Ctesiphon should be fined for falsely saying in a 
public document that he was worthy of it. This objection turns 
upon a matter of fact, and involves the real question at issue, 
the merits of Demosthenes as a statesman. It is brought for- 
ward in the form of an issue at law, because in the trial of a 
παρανόμων γραφή, it could be discussed: on no other ground ; 
still, it goes to the merits of the case. 

_Aischines objects, in the second place, to the legality of the 
2. The Proposalof resolution of Ctesiphon, because the proposal in 
Dene while it to crown Demosthenes, was made while he was 
in office. in office. For, it was a fundamental principle of 
the Athenian polity, that, with the exception of the dicasts, 
every citizen holding any office whether of emolument or honor, 
should, at the expiration of the office, or within thirty days 
after it, undergo a scrutiny, or pass an examination, ’as to the 
manner in which he had performed the public duties entrusted 
to him. The generals, the archons, embassadors, the distetz, 
the priests and priestesses, the secretaries of the state, the super- 
intendents of public buildings, the trierarchs, the senate, and 
even the areopagus, in short, all, with the exception above men- 
tioned, were strictly held to pass this scrutiny. Nor did it re- 
late only to matters of money, it embraced, also, the manner in 
which all the duties of the office had been discharged. It is 

g* 


90 


probable, however, that with the exception of money accounts, 
the scrutiny was somewhat a matter of form. The scrutiny 
was held before a board of ten officers, called Logiste, with 
whom was connected, though precisely in what relation is not 
known, another board of ten officers, called the Euthyni. With 
regard to such officers as had anything to do with the public 
money, the process is stated to have been as follows: the officer 
first laid his statement before the Logiste; if they found any 
thing wrong, or any charge was brought against the officer 
within thirty days, they delivered the case to the Euthyni, be- 
fore whom the officer was obliged to appear and plead. If the 
Euthyni were not satisfied, they referred the case to a court of 
justice, for which the Logiste appointed the judges by lot, and 
in which proclamation was made, for any one to come forward 
as accuser. The court was held in the logisterion, where the 
ex-officers handed in their statements for examination. The. 
scrutiny itself was called εὐθύνη; the person under liability to 
to it, ὑπεύθυνος. In addition to various disabilities attached to 
a person in this situation, there was. one which pertained di- 
rectly to the present case; namely, that no crown, or honorary 
reward, should be bestowed on such a person. But Demosthe- 
nes was in two offices at the time the resolution of Ctesiphon 
was proposed, and was of course liable to the scrutiny, and 
continued so, till the expiration of his term of office, and thirty 
days after. It was clear, therefore, that the resolution in this 
respect conflicted with an existing law, and that, too, one of 
great importance. For, besides the checks which it furnished 
against malfeasance in office, it was an acknowledgment, which 
the people exacted from those to whom they had delegated 
power, of their own sovereignty ; so that to refuse to render an 
account of the office one had held, was considered a kind of 
despotic assumption of supremacy over the state. 

The third ground of impeachment was, that the resolution 
3. Megality of COnflicted with the law of proclamations, which re- 
the Proclama- quired the proclamation of crowns conferred by the 
ay senate to be in the senate house, and of those by 
the people, in the Assembly in the Pnyx, whereas this resolu- 
tion of Ctesiphon ordered the crown to be proclaimed in the 
theater at the Dionysian festival, at the performance of the new 
tragedies. ‘The law of proclamations, however, was merely a 


91 


matter of policy, and, therefore, this objection is less important 
than the second, though sufficient, if well founded, of which 
perhaps there may be some doubt, to nullify the resolution and 
convict Ctesiphon. These last. two objections, it will be no- 
ticed, are strictly legal ones, both in form and substance. They 
admit the facts in the case, but deny the legality of the pro- 
posal which is founded upon them. 

The writ of impeachment was drawn with skill, and was well 
Character of δἀδρίοα to the object which Aischines had in view. 
the Impeach- Both the resolution of Ctesiphon and the impeach- 
aah ment of it by Aischinés were party movements; 
they were passages at arms between the party of freedom, and 
the Macedonian faction, in the persons of their great leaders. 
Asschines had his choice between two modes of resisting the 
resolution of Ctesiphon. He might have done it in the Assem- 
bly, by showing that Demosthenes did not deserve a crown, 
But he chose to discuss this point, the merits of Demosthenes 
as a public man, before the dicasts rather than before the As- 
sembly ; which, we have seen, he could do, in a trial of im- 
peachment. And he had here one great advantage. ‘The ille- 
gality of Ctesiphon’s resolution was undeniable; with respect to 
the law of accountableness, certainly, and probably with respect 
to the law of proclamations. Aischines, therefore, by. this 
mode of procedure, could attack Demosthenes through Ctesi- 
phon, with the certainty, as he thought, of both convicting 
Ctesiphon and depriving Demosthenes of the proposed honor. 
_ At any rate, it could be postponed, as it was, for many years. 

: The trial did not take place till sometime in the beginning of 
autumn, 330, B.C. We are not acquainted with 
the causes of this delay. Neither orator refers to it, 
or complains of it. The trial had no doubt been talked of 
throughout Greece. Demosthenes and Atschines. were every 
where known, and known, not only as rivals, but as the great 
orators of the age. As the day of contest approached, we can 
easily imagine the eager curiosity of the people, and the anx- 
ious importunity of friends; at length, we behold the crowds 
from every quarter, from Peloponnesus, and Thebes, and not 
unlikely from Macedon itself, collecting into the city to be pres- 
ent at this grand, this last struggle in the cause of Grecian 
liberty. For, Atschines complains of the solicitations which 


The Trial. 


92 


were made by the party of Demosthenes among the people. 
He also remarks that all the Greeks were solicitous about the 
trial, and that no one remembers ever to have seen so many per-” — 
sons present before on such an occasion. At last the day arrives, 
and, after the usual preliminaries, Aischines arises and speaks. 

It is to be considered that it is now eight years since the bat- 
Speech of _ tle of Cheeronea, that the Athenians retained their free 
Asschines. constitution and all the forms of civil proceedings 
which they ever had, and that they might easily be persuaded 
to believe they were as free as ever. It was quite natural that 
with the loss of liberty they should grow more and more at- 
tached to its forms, and by their admiration of what was ancient 
make up in their own feelings for their present situation. -Ats- 
chines powerfully appeals to this conservative feeling. He tells 
them in the opening sentence, to look on the one hand at the 
intrigues, and arrangements and entreaties which certain indi- 
vidnals were making to defeat the due course of law; but he 
assures them in contrast, that he came relying, first upon the 
gods, and then upon the laws. He straightway begins a plain, 
convincing, lawyer-like argument, to show that this decree of 
Ctesiphon, proposing to crown Demosthenes when he had not 
submitted himself to the people, is a violation of ancient cus- 
toms and laws, and he claims that the neglect of their ancient 
constitution, by giving all political power into the hands of irre- 
sponsible men and mere demagogues, was the cause of all they 
had suffered. In conducting the argument, after cautioning the 
Judges against the arts of his adversary, “ thinking to put down 

“Jaws by words,” he winds up with a sentence, which is quoted 
by Pliny as an example of bold language. “The orator and the 
law must say the same thing, and when the law utters one 
voice, and the orator another, give your verdict to the justice of 
the laws and not to the shamelessness of the orator.” The argu- 
ment upon the point is unanswerable. 

Aéschines next enters into an argument to prove the illegal- 
ity of the time and place. . In this part, too, he dwells upon the 
reverence due to the laws. In reply to certain supposed objec- 
tions, he says, “to these sophistries, 1 oppose your laws as my ad- 
vocates, whose aid I invoke throughout the trial.” He then pro- 
ceeds to the political transactions. It is not necessary to follow 
him through the whole. In regard to the peace of 346, B.C., 


« 


98 


he claims that Demosthenes was bribed to hurry the treaty, by 
which the Athenians lost the opportunity of making a favorable 
one. The orators contradict each other upon the facts point 
blank. But there is a passage near the end of this part of the 
argument, which I will translate, as it has been admired by Ci- 
cero, and commented upon by Plutarch, and imitated by Junius. 
Aischines had spoken of Demosthenes’ extravagant flattery of 
Philip at the time of the treaty, and then brings up in contrast 
with it, his exultation at the assassination of Philip. “And yet, 
Athenians, this enormous flatterer, having heard trom the emis- 
saries of Charidemus, of the death of Philip, but pretending to 
have had it revealed to him in a vision from the gods, as if he 
had learned the event, not from Charidemus, but from Jupiter 
and Minerva, who, as he says, appeared to him in the night and 
foretold it to him—to him in the night!—they whom he per- 
jures himself by, every day of his lite—this enormous flatterer, 
I say, on the one hand came before you with a lie in his mouth, 
and on the other, only seven days after the death of his daugh- 
ter, before he had mourned and performed the usual rites to the 
dead, came forth in public crowned with a garland and dressed 
in white to sacrifice in public—he, the wretch! who had lost 
the only one and the first one who had ever called him father : 
I say not this to upbraid him with his affliction, but I scrutinize 
his character. For the unnatural and bad father cannot be a 
good citizen, nor will he, who has no affection for those who are 
nearest and closest allied to him, value you above foreigners ; 
nor could it be possible for him who is base in private to be- 
come virtuous in public, nor could he who was not virtuous in 
public at home, become honest and upright in the embassy in 
Macedonia, for he changed not the character, but only the place ; 
οὐ τὸν τρόπον ἀλλὰ τὸν τόπον μόνον." No translation can do jus- 
tice to the exquisite construction of the first part of the para- 
graph, or the concise force and antithesis of the remainder. It 
may be best seen in the imitation of Junius. He is addressing 
the Duke of Bedford; “1 reverence the afflictions of a good man; 


_his sorrows are sacred. But how can we take part in the dis- 


tresses of a man whom we can neither love nor esteem, or feel 
for a calamity of which he himself is insensible? Where was 
the father’s heart when he could look for or find an immediate 
consolation for the loss of an only son, in consultations and bar- 


94 


gains for a place at court, and even in the misery of balloting at 
the India-house.” Cicero, in the Tusculan Questions expresses 
the highest admiration for this passage. “ Itaque et Atschines 
in Demosthenem invehitur, quod is, septimo die post filize mor- 
tem, hostias immolasset. At quam rhetorice! quam copiose! 
quas sententias colligit ! quae verba contorquet !”—That this 
passage was familiarly known in Greece and admired as a great 
effort, is manifest from what Plutarch says upon it. He enters 
into an argument to justify the conduct of Demosthenes on the 
oceasion, and adds,—* These reflections we thought proper to 
make, because we have observed that this discourse of Aischi- 
nes has weakened the minds of many persons and put them on 
indulging all the effeminacy of sorrow.” 

Aischines next proceeds to the interval between the peace 
and the war. His general statement is, that Demosthenes find- 
ing the peace unpopular, strove to break it; and he represents 
the exertions of Demosthenes during these years, as influenced 
by bribery, and terminating in the surrender of the rights of 
Athens to the smaller states, with whom he made treaties. 
He, however, does not dwell long upon this period, as he was 
here weak, while Demosthenes dilates upon it at length, as 
eine chiefly the period of his taking the lead in public 
affairs. 

Atschines now comes to the fatal war, the Jast Sacred war. 
He here appeals to the superstition of the people, and wishes 
to show that in opposing the Holy League of the Amphictyons, 
Demosthenes had forfeited the favor of the gods, and that Philip 
in fighting in this cause had secured all his success. He even 
seems to attribute all the sufferings of the Greeks from Philip 
and Alexander to the anger of the gods. The narrative of the 
circumstances leading to the war, and of the suffering of the 
Greeks, is done with the skill of a master-artist, and, yet, one 
cannot help feeling it was too late in the history of Athens to 
appeal to the superstition of the people. 

He then proceeds to the events which happened between the 
battle and the present trial. The general strain of the argu-” 
ment is, that everything in which Demosthenes has had a hand, 
has turned out badly: and it is in answer to this point, that 
Demosihenes bestows the most labor—claiming that he had 
done well for the honor and glory of Greece, but a destiny rules 
over all, 


95 


This oration of Aischines is wrought with great care; in the 
earlier part, where he felt himself strong, direct and logical, in 
other parts plausible and vigorous, and in some rising to the very 
heights of eloquence. The narratives, to which the ancients, 
both poets and orators, paid much attention, are finished with 
perfect art, and the loftier appeals to the stronger feelings and 
passions are some of them made with great power. But the 
reader feels even now that his long detail of the laws is tire- 
some, and that his prolixity, especially when compared with the 
concise energy of Demosthenes, often becomes mere dullness. 
His conclusion is most lame and impotent: “ Ὁ Earth and Sun, 
and Virtue, and Understanding and Education, by which are 
distinguished the honorable and the base, I have uttered my 
words, and I have declared my sentiments”—a personification 
and an address so-puerile as justly to bring down the ridicule 
of his adversary, and yet, what is the more remarkable, it imme- 
diately follows the noblest passage in all ancient eloquence, ex- 
cepting the still loftier one to which it undoubtedly gave rise,— 
the celebrated oath of Demosthenes. This oration was much 
admired by the ancients. Cicero has many allusions to it, and 
expressly imitates the graphic description of the burning of 
Thebes, in two of his orations. On the whole, we may say, 
that it was worthy to call forth the very greatest exertions of 
the very greatest orator that ever lived. 

Ctesiphon spoke next, and then Demosthenes. Denrosthenes 
had many difficulties to encounter.. He had urged his country 
Speech of De- to war, and she was conquered. He had made 
-mosthenes. mighty exertions, and they had been unavailing. 
He had to defend himself, standing amidst the ruins of the 
State, and that State brought low under his administration. In 
addition to this, every attempt at deliverance from the power of 
Macedon had not only been unsuccessful, but had exposed those 
who made them to still greater rigor, and Demosthenes was re- 
garded as the secret instigator of the whole. <A bare enumera- 
tion of events will show this. In 335, B.C., Thebes revolts, as 
was supposed through the agency of Demosthenes, but she is 
utterly destroyed by Alexander. The Athenians send an em- 
bassy to apologize for their part in the matter. Alexander de- 
mands ten citizens to be given him, among whom is Demosthe- 
nes. But they refuse to deliver Demosthenes, In 334, B. Ο,, 


96 


Alexander was in Persia and fought the battle of the Granicus. 
In 333, B.C., there were some attempts at a revolution in Lace- 
demon, but they were suppressed, by the news of the battle of 
Issus. In 332, B.C., Alexander is in Tyre, where ambassadors 
meet him from Greece, and from Athens among the rest, to 
assure him of their fidelity, as there had been further attempts 
at freedom in Lacedemon, and as the King of Persia had 
sent three hundred talents of gold to Athens to instigate the 
Athenians to revolt, In 331, B.C., the Lacedeemonians were 
utterly defeated in their efforts at freedom, by Antipater, and 
Alexander gained the battle of Arbela. EEmbassadors were sent 
to implore his mercy, and he requires the leaders of the revolt 
to be punished. 

It was just at this time, when every thing was adverse, when 
the last struggles for liberty had been exhausted, when Athens 
was in supplication at the feet of her conqueror, and that con- 
queror the greatest warrior in the world, when Demosthenes had 
already been once marked out as a victim to appease the wrath 
of Macedon and was now regarded as codperating with Persia 
against Greece; it was at this time, when he was charged as 
being the accursed instrument, fated of the gods, of all her ca- 
lamities, amidst defeat and discouragement, and before a people 
bereft of the spirit of liberty, and cowering before the conqueror 
of Asia, that Demosthenes was to defend himself from having 
been the cause of all this ruin. But there is one feeling so 
deeply seated in the heart of man as to be the very last that is 
utterly eradicated. Subjected to foreign power as Athens now | 
was, the love of glory was still strong in the hearts.of the Athe- 
nians. ‘They were proud of the days of their power when they | 
gave law to Greece, and they cheated themselves with the be- 
lief that they were after all, of the old Athenian race. Here 
was the strength of Demosthenes. Nor did it require any art 
to point out to him the course he was to follow. -For he him- 
self was borne up, in all his labors, by this pride of country. 
- He had embodied, as it were, in himself the ancient spirit of the 
land. From the beginning of the oration, he is reanirating the 
Athenians with the proud feelings of the past, and he carries 
them with him and with such rapidity of thought that at last 
he swears to them in an oath, that if they had known they were 
to be defeated, they ought to have done as they did. 


97 


The speech of Demosthenes is wrought in every part of it, 
General Account With the utmost care. Like a drama, it is divided 
of the Speech of into certain larger portions, or acts, and these again 
Pemosthenes. are subdivided, as it were, into scenes, and the 
whole is put together with as much consummate skill as is to be 
found in the most perfect work of art. We shall here mention 
only the principal divisions. These are three. The first part em- 
braces the period of the fatal peace of 346, B.C. 
It contains an account of the circumstances under 
which the peace was made, of the injurious delay of the em- 
bassy which was sent to administer the oaths of ratification to 
Philip, of the passage of Thermopyle, and the destruction of 
Phoceis, and of the general and remote consequences of the 
peace. Demosthenes separates this portion of his speech from 
the rest, on the ground that it embraces matter irrelevant to the 
case. He professes to take it up, merely because Atschines had 
given so false an account of it. This movement, by which he 
is enabled to treat of a period so disgraceful to Athens and her 
statesmen, as something not properly pertinent to the case, (but 
which after all he could not safely have left out of it,) is most 
masterly. For this peace, whether the freedom of Greece could 
ultimately have been saved or not, was the immediate and most 
powerful cause of its overthrow; and Demosthenes, as we have 
seen, was a good deal connected with the transactions of that 
period. It was well judged, then, if it could be fairly done, to 
separate this portion of his public life, from that on which he 
relied for the proof that he was deserving of the crown which 
Ctesiphon had proposed. But could it be fairly done? De- 
mosthenes makes a distinction between that portion of his pub+ 
lic life in which he acted as the leading statesman in Athens, 
originating and directing all the important measures of the 
State, and that earlier portion in which he was struggling in 
vain against the policy and measures of the dominant leaders, 
If this be a just distinction, and it seems so, then might Demos- 
thenes fairly leave out this early period from the account which 
he wishes to give of himself as an Athenian statesman, though 
it is to be observed that in going through with it, he is careful 
to set forth his share in the transactions as patriotic, and worthy _ 
of approbation. 


First Division. 


9 


98 


Having finished the irrelevant topics, which, as he said, had 
been forced upon him by A‘schines, Demosthenes proceeds to 
make his defense against the impeachment itself, and to re- 
count those things done by himself for which he was deserving 
of the honor, which had been voted him by the senate. It is 
in this connection, he makes the distinction mentioned above. 
He confines himself to the instances of successful resistance, 
which were made against the encroachments of Philip, after 
“J.” as he says, “came to take the lead in affairs.” The period 
of what we may call the administration of Demosthenes com- 
mences about the time when Philip, after the peace, began to 
intermeddle with the affairs of the Grecian States, and extends 
to the battle of Cheronea. Demosthenes divides this period 
into two subdivisions, which correspond to the second and third 
divisions of his speech. We have seen with what success, De- 
mosthenes, by his embassies and his eloquence, resisted and 
thwarted the intrigues of Philip in Peloponnesus, in Megara, in 
Acarnania; and how triumphantly the Athenians, under the 
guidance of Demosthenes, after the war was declared, rescued 
the Chersonese, saved Byzantium, and expelled Philip from 
Eubeea; but we also saw how suddenly this successful career 
was stopped, by the unexpected outbreak of another Sacred 
war in Greece. Jn accordance with these facts, Demosthenes 
divides this period into two; that, in which Athens was sue- 
cessful against Philip, and that, in which by the great calamity 
which befel her, she lost the fruits of her victory, and was her- 
The Second self conquered. Demosthenes, therefore, embraces in 
Division. the second division of his speech only that. portion 
of his administration in which Athens was every where success- 
ful. It begins with the embassy into Pelopormesus and ends 
with the triumphs in Eubcea and Byzantium. This too, was a 
masterly movement on the part of our orator; he separates the 
_ period of defeat from the period of victory. It is easy to see 
. with what exultation he dwells upon this brief period of tri- 
umph, and what advantage it gave him to look at it by itself, 
and to found upon it alone a sufficient ground for the honor 
which had been awarded him. Nor was there any thing unfair 
in asking a judgment upon those measures which he had both 
originated and carried to a successful issue, apart from those, 
in which he made a vain resistance against a war brought upon 


99 


his country by another party. It is true, his statesmanship was 
as conspicuous in the latter as in the former period, but if there 
was any disadvantage to himself arising from the unsuccessful 
result of the war, he was right in avoiding it. 

This second part of the oration contains, as we have said, his 
defense against the impeachment. He first discusses the mer- 
itorious ground of the honor which Ctesiphon had proposed 
shuuld be bestowed upon him; next, he examines, but very 
slightingly, the questions of official accountability and of the 
proclamation ; and then concludes this portion of his speech 
by assuming that he had made out a clear case of acquittal for 
Ctesiphon. 

But Demosthenes can no more leave out the Amphissean 
war from his speech than he could have done the peace of 346, 
B.C. But the pretense under which it is brought in, is some- 
what remarkable. It is, that Adschines had gone 
out of the proper bounds of the case to attack him, 
and it was no more than fair that he should be attacked in 
turn. It is under this rather thin disguise, that Demosthenes 
brings in the period of the Amphissean war, which forms the 
substance of his third division. He first traces out the several 
steps by which A‘schines brought the Amphictyonic war against 
his country, and, then, states, at great length and with wonder- 
ful power, the measures which he had adopted for his country 
in warding off the perils of which A%schines was the cause. 
Having gone through with these, he passes ‘in a rapid review 
over the principal points of his defense, and ends, as he began, 
with a prayer, but now, with a prayer for the salvation of his 
country. We proceed to a more particular analysis and expla-. 
nation of the oration. 


Third Division, 


ANNOTATIONS. 


§1—8. Exorpium. 


In the speech of Aéschines, especially in the latter portion, 
after the orator had finished the formal divisions of his argu- 
ment, there were several points, which produced so great. an 
impression, that Demosthenes was driven to put forth his great- 


100 


est efforts at the very outset of his speech, in order to do away 
with the effect of them. In particular, Aischines urges that 
Demosthenes shall not be called on to speak at all, but, if he 
does speak, that he should be limited to the same order in the 
defense, which he himself had followed in the prosecution. 
There was no need of oratory, he says in substance, in the trial 
of an impeachment of this kind; it is only necessary to com- 
pare the psephism with the law, as was done in ancient times 
by the judges, who were then so scrupulous that they would 
condemn the accused for the variation of a word. And such 
evils have grown out of the practice of suffering orators to 
speak on these trials, in aid of the parties, that “For my own 
part,” he says, “1 would almost propose that neither prosecutor 
nor defendant should have assistant speakers; for, the Right in 
this matter is not a thing indefinite, but is bounded by your 
laws. In carpentry, when we wish to Jearn whether a part is 
straight or not, we apply a measuring rule to determine; so in 
these trials, we have only to apply the laws, the measure of the 
Right, to the psephism, to determine whether there is anything 
in it contrary to the laws. Shew that the two are coincident, 
Ctesiphon, and you need say no more. Why, then, is it need- 
ful for you to call Demosthenes?” “But if overstepping the 
just bounds of defense, he shall call Demosthenes, do not you, 
judges, accept this evil-doing man, who thinks to put down the 
laws by words; but, if you do, demand that he follow the same 
order in the defense, as 1 followed in the prosecution. - And 
what was that? First, I exhibited the laws forbidding to crown 
those who were subject to the official scrutiny, and I proved 
that Demosthenes was thus subject, when Ctesiphon proposed 
to crown him. Next, I went through with the laws of procla- 
mations, prohibiting the proclamation of a crown bestowed by 
the people, anywhere, except in the Assembly; and lastly, I 
spoke with brevity of his private life, and at length of his pub- 
lic ermmes. So, too, demand of Demosthenes that he speak 
first on the question of the official accountability, secondly, 
about the proclamation, and, thirdly, show that he is worthy 
of the crown. And if he shall entreat you to indulge him as 
to the order of his speech, promising in the end to make his 
defense against the charge of illegality, indulge him not, nor 
be ignorant that this is a trick of the court-house. He does 


‘ 


101 


not intend to return to that-charge, but having no defense to 
make, hopes to lead you to forget it, by drawing your attention 
to other matters. But watch him, and drive him to the true 
question.” The issue of the trial turned upon this point; if 
Zaschines had been successful here, it is probable he would 
have been successful in the trial. Hence, the solemn prayer of 
Demosthenes, in his opening sentence, that the gods would in- 
spire lis judges with the determination, to let him speak as the 
laws permitted,—according to his own choice. 

Adschines, too, in connection with the foregoing topic, repre- 
sents Demosthenes as having very little interest in the trial ;— 
“ Why, the tears?) Why, the cry? Why, that tone? Is not 
Ctesiphon defendant, and the penalty a fine, while you contend 
neither for property, nor life, nor citizens’ rights? But for what 
is his zeal? for golden crowns, for proclamations in the theater, 
contrary to the laws ;’—after this, he returns to the point, that 
Ctesiphon should not call in Demosthenes to assist him. In 
this connection he speaks of the shamelessness of Demosthenes, 
in praising his own deeds. “1 Ctesiphon shall presume to call 

for Demosthenes to address you, and he shall ascend the Bema, 
and laud himself, it will be harder to listen to the praises than 
it was to endure the deeds.” ‘From such a shameless proceed- 
ing, if you are’prudent, Ctesiphon, you will forbear, and make 
the defense yourself.” It is these topics,—the order of the de- 
fense, the interest he has at stake, the self-praise,—especially 
the first, which Demosthenes takes up in the exordium. 


- 


§ 1-2. ΤῊΝ Prayer or DEeMosTHENES, IN WHICH HE PRAYS, 
FIRST, FOR THE GOODWILL OF THE JUDGES, AND, SECONDLY, 
FOR PERMISSION TO FOLLOW THE COURSE OF THOUGHT, 
WHICH HE HAD MARKED OUT FOR HIMSELF. 


§ 1. εὔχομαι. English translators have avoided the sim- 
ple word, Z pray, preferring the fuller forms “JZ begin by pray- 
ing,” “Let me begin by imploring,’ “I make my prayer ;” but 
the simple J pray seems to be the most forcible. Wolf trans- 
lates; “precor.””. πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις. Lord Brougham 
has done well in not translating πάσαις; “ All the Heavenly 

g* 7 


102 


Powers.” Perhaps, the simple First, I pray all the gods, is the 

best way of translating these few opening words. It should be 
observed, however, that the words πᾶσιν καὶ πάσαις have an 
emphasis in the original, from their position, which is lost in 
any translation, Ovate4@. Both Aischines and Demosthe- 
nes quote this verb from the resolution of Ctesiphon, and Ats- 
chines lays stress on it; for he says, he will prove that “ Demos- 
thenes never began to say what is most honorable, nor is now 
continuing to do what is useful, to the people.” §50. There was, 
therefore, a fitness in the choite of the phrase. καὶ πᾶσεν 
ὑμῖν, to all—you,—the individuals before me, not the state 
alone ; thus establishing a personal sympathy with those whom 
he was addressing. ὑπάρξαι. This clause had better be 
translated by a subordinate proposition, as in the Latin, “wt 
tanta (benevolentia) mihi a vobis tribuatur,” and in the English 
translations ; yet, the English can give the form of the Greek 
expression; J pray for so much goodwill to be granted to me. 
τουτονί, this, not the vulgar “this here.” Dionysius of Hali- 
carnassus, in speaking of changes made in words with the view 
to a harmonious composition of them in the members of the 
sentence, refers to this clause, and says: “ Demosthenes added 
a letter to the pronoun, in reference to the structure”—not to 
the thought—“ for, εἰς τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα was enough.” De 
Comp. Verb. C. vi. ὅπερ, that which, or, what, not “ what- 
soever.” “Sane coherent syntactice ὅπερ et τοῦτο. Que sequ- 
untur, μὴ τὸν ἀνγτίδικον----, addita sunt ἐπεξηγήσεως χάριν" 
ScHAEFER. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, for your interest. Compare ὑπὲρ 
τῶν ἐχθρῶν, § 2343; and, also, ὑπὲρ τῶν διχαστῶν, § 249, “ utile 
judicibus.” Scuarrer. καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας etoebelas 
τε καὶ δόξης, This clause contains the particulars, em- 
braced in the general expression, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, and being united in 
one by τε καί, is connected with that by the first καί, This form 
of construction occurs in English ; but in general the particu- 
lars are simply appended without a conjunction, as if in appo- 
sition. It may be translated thus, for your interest, for both 
your prety and honor; or, perhaps better, for your interest, your: 
prety, and your honor. It concerned their piety not to violate 
the judicial oath, and their honor, not merely not to do that, 
but, also, not to be so unfair as to take the opposite party into 
their counsels. Unpian, τοὺς θεούς, introduced, because 


108 


the infinitive is remote from the finite verb. πῶς ἀκούξδεν, 
g We have seen how carefully A‘schines had marked out, 

how they should hear him. τὸν ὄρκον, the oath 
taken by the dicasts at the time of their appointment. It is 
given in Demosthenes’ speech against Timocrates. § 746-747. 
The portion referred to here is as follows: καὶ ἀκροάσομαν τοῦ 
τε κατηγόρου καὶ τοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁμοίως ἀμφοῖν. Quoted by 
Seacer, in Classical Journal, vol. 53, p.50. πρὸς ἅπασνυ 
τοῖς ἄλλοις δικαίοις, Each requisition of the oath 
was a just one; hence, by referring to all the other just requisi- 
tions, he gives to the words of the oath which he quotes, that 
sanctity which belongs: to the whole. οὐ δὲ τες οὐδὲ μόνον, See 
§ 93, § 107. TH τάξεν καὶ τῆ ἀπολογίᾳ, not, = τῇ 
τάξει τῆς ἀπολογίας, but embracing both the order and the mat- 
ter of the defense. The single word, ἀπολογία, might easily be 
understood to mean both, but, with reference to” the exigencies 
of his case, the orator draws attention to “the order,” by a 
specific word. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, it should be rendered 
something as above, the order and the matter, or, as Lord 
Brougham, “method and line,” or as Kennedy, “order and 
course” of defense. “Quo ordine et quod velit dicere.” Dissun. 
GeGotintar καὶ προήφηται, not, “may choose and pre- 
fer,” as would be said by modern orators, but, has chosen and 
preferred, in accordance with the practice among ancient orators, 
of previous preparation. Lord Brougham has overlooked this 
distinction, and translates “ may be pleased to prefer.” In one 
respect this is a very fine translation. Demosthnes has here, 
as elsewhere, used two verbs, where either would have well ex- 
pressed the meaning without the other. There is a distinction 
between the words, it is true, but it does not seem important 
that it shouldbe brought forward in the present instance. This 
is common with all writers, although the repetition appears in 
different languages, in different forms; and it isthe duty of the 
translator to transfer the forms of expression in one language 
into the corresponding forms in another. Lord Brougham in 
the present case has done well to transfer the finite form of one 
of the verbs into the infinitive. τῶν ἀγωγεζομένων 
ἕκαστος. ‘Anohoylue requires ὁ φεύγων, but, while the ora- 
tor would give prominence to the rights of the defendant, he 
would claim for him only what belongs to the prosecutor as 


104 


well, what the law gives to both parties,—that they should be 
heard alike ;—hence, the anacoluthon. ‘ Consulto locutus est 
orator perplexius, ut veniam ordinis pervertendi tanquam suf- 
furaretur.” ScHarrer. That the “perplexed diction” was in- 
tentional, is doubtless true, but there was nothing unfair in the 
demand of Demosthenes. -Aischines assigns no legal reason 
why Demosthenes should begin with the question of officia 
accountability or of the proclamation. “ 


This sentence consists of three portions, or periods, of which 
Construction of the first prepares the way for the second, and the 
the Sentence. second for the third, while, in the importance of 
the thought, the third is superior to the second, and the second 
to the first. In the first, the orator implores the kindness of 
the judges; in the next, what kindness would prompt, that 
they would hear both parties alike; and in the last, what is 
involved in the hearing both parties alike, that they would 
allow him to follow his own order of defense ;—and this is the 
grand object of the whole. This principle of arrangement is 
universal, and obtains even in the smaller portions of a sentence. 
Thus, in the first portion, the solemnity of the prayer foretells 
the importance of the petition, while the clause, ex- 
pressive of his kindness both to the state and the 
individuals before him, contains the ground and the measure of 
that kindness which he asks in return. If the first member 
had been placed last, or the second and third had exchanged 
places, these auxiliary thoughts would have lost much of their 
power. In the second portion, the first clause, by its appeal to 
the piety and the honor of the judges, awakens in their minds 
a strong personal interest in the forthcoming petition, that they 
would take for their counsellors as to the manner in which they 
should hear him, the Laws and the Oath, which petition itself 
is strengthened by the contrast of the cruelty of taking his 
adversary as their counsellor; and then, after premising the 
justice of all the other requisitions of the oath, and hence rais- 
ing a presumption in favor of the justice of that requisition he 
was about to mention,—then, at last he utters the important 
clause, that they should hear both parties alike. The last por- 
tion is constructed on the same principle as the whole sentence, 


Of the parts. 


10ῦ 


——that of the climax. Not only is the thought, most import- 
ant to the oration, placed last, but prominence is given to it 
by the very mode in which the three clauses are united, by 
οὐ μόνον---ἀλλά, This analysis, which is taken substantially 
from Dissen, is sufficient. to authorize the law of arrangement, 
or disposition, which he lays down, “ut premittatur id cujus 
minor rhetorica vis, postponatur cujus sit major rhetorica vis 
et quo maxime trahere velis attentionem.” By the rhetorical 
worth of a thought, he goes on to explain, he does not mean 
its intrinsic and absolute worth, but its worth relative to the 
case in hand, “ Rhetorica autem vis ubique consilzo loci defini- 
tur.” De Structura periodorum oratoria, XII-XIy. 


If we examine this sentence with respect to its contents, apart 
from the form, we shall find several things worthy of attention. 
1. The proposition and the argument are both obvious, and 
might have been stated in the most simple form of the sentence ; 
—thus, “I ought to be permitted to follow my own order in the 
defense, for this is. required by the laws and the judicial oath.” 
But, if the orator had so stated it, he would undoubtedly have 
failed in his defense. Now, it is the difference between such a 
ACharacteristic formal, abstract statement ofan argument, and 
oftrue Eloquence that full, expanded treatment which we find in 
the present sentence, employing various forms of expression, 
the appeal, antithesis, climax, definition, to set forth the argu- 
ment, that constitutes one of the most important characteristics 
of genuine eloquence. 2. We may also notice the combination 
Combination ot Of an appeal to the feelings with the argument. 
Pr tes to the The orator appeals to mutual kindness, to piety, 
Argument. — to honor, to justice, before he uses argument. He 
touches the heart before he addresses the understanding. The 
union of the heart and the intellect is also characteristic of the 
greatest orators, and no man can be a great orator without 
such union. 8. We may notice, also, a characteristic of Demos- 
Enforcement thenes,—the enforcement of an argument by point- 
of Argument. ing out its applications. When he had quoted from 
the oath, that the judges should hear both parties alike, he 
might have stopped there, and left it to the judges to deter- 
mine what was implied in that clause;—but, no, he was not 


106 


satisfied without pointing out the application himself, and 
thereby repeating what he had already in substance demanded. 
In general, Demosthenes, who makes the most of every consid- 
eration, prefers to enforee a single argument by following out 
its applications to the introduction of several distinct argu- 
ments. 4. We add, that the last portion of this sentence ex- 
presses the thought in a form of which the orator 
is very fond,—the form of a definition. Thus, in 
the present oration, he distinguishes by definition, Accusation 
from Invective, § 123, and the Statesman from the Demagogue, 
§ 189. Aristotle in his Rhetoric includes definition among the 
topics of proof. Book 2, Ch. 23. 


The definition. 


§ 3-4. He stares THE DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH HE LA- 
BORS, BOTH IN HAVING MORE AT STAKE AND IN BEING UNDER 
THE NECESSITY OF SPEAKING OF HIMSELF. 


ἐλαττοῦμαι. Both Brougham and Kennedy give their 
translations a different turn from the Greek,—*_dschines has 
the advantage of me,” availing themselves of our expression, 
“to have the advantage of.” But the orator gives prominence 
to his own unfavorable position, not Aischines’ favorable one. 
In many things, Athenians, I am in a worse position than 4is- 
chines on this trial. περὶ τῶν ἔσων. Kennedy translates, 
“My risk in the contest is not the same.” But the Greek 
does not so much express the risk of loss as the value of that 
which is at stake. True, in proving the fact of inequality, the 
orator refers to the inequality of the losses, yet, it would seem 
that in this clause he purposely used a different expression. 
᾿“7γχωνίζεσθαν περὶ is to contend about an object, without the spe- 
cific idea of winning or losing. Hence, J do not contend about 
equal things ; this inequality is explained in the next clause, 
where we should have expected the mention of the things them- 
selves, instead of which, in consistency with the topic of disad- 
vantage which he is upon, we meet with the mention of their 
loss. The orator dwells upon the disadvantages under which he 
Jabors,—hence the propriety of the words ἐλαττοῦμαι, διαμαρτεῖν, 
évvolas. Really, it was the crown which he might fail to 
attain, and in this view of it, Auschines asks why all this ado 
about such a trifle; virtually, it was the kindness which was 


107 


signified by the crown, the loss of which was a loss that could 
not be expressed. But, Demosthenes was not the man to fail 
of the right word here. δεαμαρτεῖν, not, “to forfeit your 
esteem,” as Lord Brougham and Kennedy give it,—the esteem 
already existing, but, to fail of obtaining your favor,—in the 
present case. ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ wév—The construction of this 
sentence is remarkable. The orator declares how great would 
be to him the loss of their kindness, by the suppression of the 
words which would express it, and then, instead of completing 
the antithesis by setting forth the trifling risk of A‘schines, in- 
troduces against him the charge of wanton impeachment,—as 
if his risk was too insignificant to be mentioned. duu yegés, 
literally, offensive. But, however it may be rendered, there is 
reference, as Kennedy says, “to the fear of an evil omen.” 
ἐκ περιουσίας. The thought is obvious, but difficult to 
express in English. Περιουσία literally means that which is 
over and above one’s necessary expenses,—a superfluity ; hence, 
as a motive of conduct, it is used of whatever is done without 
necessity, or from mere wantonness. In the present case, 
Atschines volunteered, and without risking any thing jeoparded 
the greatest interests of Demosthenes. Rersxe’s Annotationes 
and Index Grecitatis. But this man brings against me a wan- 
ion accusation. 6 pias, the other—what belongs by nature to 
all men—that they hear,—instead of, “the other, that all men, 
what belongs to them by nature, hear.” This clause was 
thrown in to soften the assertion, that A‘schines from his posi- 
tidn as accuser had an advantage, by representing it as natural 
to all men to listen with pleasure to invective. But still, it 
is worthy of notice that the Athenians took an excessive de- 
light in the invectives which were so common in the Assembly 
and the dicasteries. Demosthenes tells them that “ they bar- 
tered away the interest of the state for the pleasure they took 
in invectives.” §138. ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν is construed with 
πᾶσιν, almost all. This clause is also thrown in to soften the 
absoluteness of the assertion. 066, “non, mihi videbor, sed, 
hominibus videbor, alioquin opus erat δοκῶ," Bremri. J shall 
be thought. 


108 


We may notice here with what skill Demosthenes turns to 
Mode of Refu- his own advantage the attermpt of Adschines to ex- 
ian cite odium against him by representing him as striv- 
ing for nothing but a paltry crown, and then, in order to secure 
it, proclaims his own praises. He sets forth these things as so 
many disadvantages under which he labored ; and the topic of 
Disadvantage—the having of some peculiar difficulty to encoun- 
ter,;—is one of the Common Topics of Oratory. But observe 
the nature of these disadvantages. They were not of a kind 
to lower him in the estimation of his judges, but contrariwise. 
The first was, not that he had so little, but so much at stake— 
even their kindness !—the second, that he was, not to glorify 
himself, but to speak of his own public life. 

It is characteristic of Demosthenes, in taking up any topic of 
Characteristic of his adversary that he not merely answers it, but 
Demosthenes. makes some farther use of it, either directly for 
himself, or against his antagonist ; he not only takes possession 
of the enemy’s weapons, but he uses them, and almost always 
turns them against him. Thus, here, he takes advantage of 
the sneer of Aischines, that he was contending for the bauble of 
a crown, to express his deep sense of the value of that for which 
he was really contending—the friendship of the Athenian peo- 
ple. So, too, having shown the necessity he was under to speak 
of himself, he adds, that the blame of this, if any, was justly 
his, who created the necessity. 


§ 5. He pECLARES THAT THE TRIAL WAS OF COMMON INTERES 
TO HIMSELF AND CTESIPHON. 


ὦ ἄνδρες “AOnvaior. Reiske, Dissen, and others have 
δικασταί instead of ᾿“΄θηναῖον, But, although Demosthenes was 
speaking before the dicasts, and although he expressly distin- 
guishes between the dicasts and the audience (§ 196), yet, in 
most other instances in his speech, he uses the general address, 
—Athenians. Besides, a general address here comports better 
with the latter part of the sentence,—as he is there really speak- 
ing of the whole Athenian people. Voemel has the same text 
as Dindorf. ἐμοί te καὶ. Te καὶ unites Demosthenes and 
Ctesiphon as on the same footing of interest. It is true, indeed, 
that κοινὸν implies the same thing, but such repetition is not 


109 


uncommon. 7848 is omitted in the best Codex, (also, in some 
. οὗ the best editions, as Voemel’s) perhaps, by an error of the 
copyist, or by a correction of the style. The different readings 
of passages often involve the nicest questions of style, and 
hence, we shall occasionally refer to them. In the present case 
either would be correct. “ Utrumque dici potuit.” W. Diyporr. 
ἐλάττονος, that is, than from Ctesiphon, or, possibly, “quam 
si pro me solo decertarem.” Bremi, ἐμοί, the dative of ref- 
erence. Kiiuner, 284.10. Of no less earnestness as it respects 
myself, or simply, from me. πάντων, any thing. “ Quacum- 
gue re spoliari, non, rebus cunctis.” Bremi. To be deprived 
of any one of all things, but especially of this one thing of all, 
your friendship. For a similar use, see ὃ 260, ἃ 246. ἄλλως 
te κἂν, Καν-ε-καὶ ἐάν. "“λλως τὸ καί. “Ad ea spectat ἄλλως 
quze nune preeterimus, καὶ autem ad illud, quod ut precipuum 
ponimus.” Hence, “ Quum aliter, tum,” presertim.” Her. 
ad Vie. 778. to—twl. ὅσῳ weg καὶ, This clause, be- 
sides repeating positively what has just been implied under a 
negative form of statement, avoids the necessity of ending the 
period with words of ill-omen. “Ex veterum judicio sententia 
hic non poterat in verbis mali ominis subsistere, sed ad contra- 
rium, ad leta reverti debebat; aliter manca fuisset nec abso- 
luta.” DissEn. | 


This paragraph refers to the proposal of Atschines, that he 
and Ctesiphon should argue the case by themselves. It is refu- 
tation by contempt. The orator takes it for granted that he 
was of course to speak, and we might almost suspect, that he 
notices the proposal of Aischines only for the opportunity it 
gave him of reiterating his high appreciation of the friendship 
of the people. We may observe, that, naturally, the objection 
against Demosthenes’ speaking at all should have been consid- 
ered before the objection against its being left to his choice to ᾿ 
determine the order of his speech. But Demosthenes for his 
own purpose took up the more important point first. Here, 
however, he follows the strictly logical order, for the present 
topic is followed by a recurrence to the question of the order of 
the speech. 

10 


110 


§ θ-, He REVERTS TO THE ORDER OF THE SPEECH. 


ἀξιῶ καὶ déowar, 7] demand (as a right), and I w- 
plore (asa favor). κρᾶσις ἀξίωματος καὶ οἴκτου. Utpran. Prob- 
ably, however, the two words were customarily joined together 
in such connection, and had lost somewhat of this distinction. 
See § 34. “Synonyma junguntur ad augendam notionem, ut 
apud Latinos oro rogoque, i.q. vehementer rogo.” Brel. 
ὁμοίως. Construed with ὑμῶν ; “a-vobis cunctis pariter, ne- 
mine excepto.” Ruisxu, δεκαίως, Construed with ἀκοῦσαι. 
Bremi and others. 70 hear me in the just way; or, in that just 
way which the laws require. 6 tedels. Τιθέναν νόμον is: 
used both of the person who proposes an individual law to be 
enacted, and of the Lawgiver, who establishes a code of laws. 
Thus in the oration against Timocrates, Demosthenes referring 
to Timocrates says, téGevxe τὸν νόμον, and of Solon,—vr6uw»— 
ods ἔθηκε Σόλων. 8 7382. He who anciently ordained them. 
δημοτικός, a friend of the people, in distinction from a 
friend of the oligarchy. Thus, A’schines in his oration con- 
trasts the two :---τὸν δημοτικόν ----τὸν ὀλιγαρχικόν, § 168. τῷ 
γράψαν. Τράφειν γόμον, is to propose a law to be acted 
upon, and hence will not apply to the laws of Solon. Ζράφειν 
is also used of the engraving of public documents on tablets or 
pillars of stone or brass, as, εἰς στήλην χαλκὴν γράψαντες. Phil. 
ut, 8.41... This is its meaning here; which Solon, our ancient 
lawgiver, thought should be enforced not merely by their enroil- 
ment, but also by the fact that you who judge are under oath. 
οὐκ ἀπιστῶν ὑμῖν», that is, as individuals, but referring to 
§7 the general principles of human nature. παρελθεῖν. 

᾿ “Citat h. 1. Harpocration v. παρελθεῖν interpretans ἀντὶ τοῦ 
νικῆσαι. Simile ductum a certantibus cursu seu pedestri, seu 
equestri, sen curuli, et contendentibus inter sese preevertere.” 
- Reiske. This verb means, to pass along the side of ; to pass along 

the side of beyond, generically, any one, specifically, one in a 
race; hence, from this last meaning, as applied to persons, to pass 
beyond, to surpass, in fraud, craft, &c., and as applied to things, 
io overcome, as, τοὺς λόγους τὰ ἔργα παρέρχεται, Phil. rv, § 132, 
deeds get the better of words. ‘Thus, zt is not possible for the de- 
fendant to overcome the criminations, The three words, ὁ διώ- 


111 


κων, τῷ φεύγοντι, παρελθεῖν, are beautifully adapted to each 
other, but are rather suggestive of a figure than used figura- 
tively ; since, if so used, it would be the pursuer, 6 διώκων, 
who would overtake and outstrip the one flying, τῷ φεύγοντι. 
κα ; τά, the apodosis begins here, shall both receive—and thus 
make. ' 


This sentence is constructed on the same principle as the 
Constructionof Opening sentence of the oration. It consists of 
the Sentence. three clauses, of which the first implores a fair hear- 
ing according to the laws, the second enforces this request by 
the character of the law-giver who ordained them, and the 
third, after supplying a new argument drawn from the reason- 
ableness of the laws, returns to the point from which the sen- 
tence started, and again implores of their piety a friendly and 
impartial hearing ;—thus forming a perfect period, which is 
formed by the course of thought passing from a given point 
round through various related thoughts to the same point. 


Although the orator returns in this paragraph to the topic of 
Repetition of the the order of the speech, yet it is not a naked repe- 
Topic of Order. tition. What before he prayed that the gods would 
inspire the judges to do as a matter of piety and reputation, 
he now claims, also, as a right, while he enforces the claim by 
a combination of new considerations with the former ones; 
such as, the greatness of the interests at stake, the judicial 
oath required by the law, the character of the lawgiver, the 
manifest fairness of the law, and that regard for the gods 
which was involved in the observation of their oaths—and all 
these interwoven without confusion. The introduction of Solon 
in this connection is done with consummate art. For Aischines 
in the end of his oration had brought him forward as one who 
had adorned the democracy with the most excellent laws, a wise 
man and a good lawgiver, and represented him as imploring 
the Athenians, by no manner of means to value the words of 
Demosthenes beyond the oaths and the laws, Now, it is the 
laws of this very founder of the democracy, which Demosthe- 
nes here implores them to be guided by, in hearing him. This 
wresting to his own advantage, of the splended eulogium of 


112 


4ischines upon Solon, to which they had just listened, must 
have been highly relished by the quick and sensitive minds of 
his audience, 

With respect to the demand of Demosthenes that he should 
Justice of the 06 permitted to follow his own order of defense, it 
claim of De- was a just one. The three objections which Aischi- 
mosthenes- nes brought against the ‘decree of Ctesiphon, were 
each of them legal ones, and Aischines nowhere shows any 
legal ground why Demosthenes should take up the question of 
official accountability first—why he should take up that, for 
imstance, before the question of the proclamation. The most 
that he could ask was that the judges as a matter of policy 
should require Demosthenes to take up that point at once 
which in their view was decisive of the case. And hence it is 
that Demosthenes makes his appeals to right, to justice, to law 
supported by oaths. The position of Atschines was masterly, 
but still more so, the movement which defeated him. 

To guard against awakening prejudice, or offending individ- 
Caution against Uals in the audience is one of the most important 
giving offense. cautions to be observed in popular oratory. This 
was particularly the case in addressing the democracy of Ath- 
ens, and Demosthenes everywhere shows himself alive to the 
necessity of it. His caution in this respect generally appears 
in short phrases and peculiar turns of expression, and can be 
best pointed out in the grammatical notes; but the present is a 
marked instance of it, and hence we refer to it. Demosthenes 
had thought it necessary to make a strong appeal to the oaths 
of the judges, but lest they should think it a reflection to re- 
mind them that they needed to be put under oath in order to 
obey the laws, he at once subjoins—not distrusting you, at least 
as it seems to me. ; | 


§ 8. He REPEATS THE OPENING PRAYER. 


ὡς #ouxs, expresses, as it were, the comment of the 
speaker upon what he is now uttering; hence, its varying 
shades of meaning. Here it expresses the surprise and indigna- 
tion of the orator that his private life should be brought imto 
trial. To mark this the more, he gives παντός an emphatic 
position. My private life—the whole—as it seems. ὅ t+, what- 


118 


soever, not a specific request, as in the opening. »Kow7, though 
an adverb, is equivalent to a substantive, forming a parallel to 
ἑκαστῷ, reputation as respects the state, and piety as respects 
each individual, For the dative here, see note to ἐμοί, ὃ 5. 


An intimate acquaintance with the speech of Aischines is 
necessary, in order to perceive all the bearings of this exordium. 
We will here refer to only one, in addition to those already 
mentioned. -Aischines had represented Demosthenes as a con- 
temner of the gods, as hurrying on the battle of Cheronea in 
spite of adverse omens, and as the ill-fated cause of the evils 
which Greece had suffered. There could be no more fitting 
refutation of this calumny than the prayer he here offers to the 

ods. 

If we look at the matter of the topics treated of in this ex- 
Character of Ordium, we need not hesitate to say, that it answers 
the Exordium. 41} the ends of a perfect exordium, which aims, as 
Quinctilian says, “reddere auditores benevolos, attentos, dociles.” 
If we look at the form, we must pronounce it equally perfect. 
It opens and ends with a prayer. Nor are we to regard this 
prayer as a mere effort of rhetoric; it was the natural expres- 
sion of a man in the circumstances in which Demosthenes was 
placed, though to give utterance to his feelings in such a form 
was the boldest effort of oratory. 


ARGUMENT. 


§ 9—53. First Parr or roe ARGUMENT. 


Thus far Demosthenes has carried the day. The judges, it 
seems, did not interfere in the matter of the order in which the 
points at issue should be argued, but allowed him to follow his 
own course. This course was very different from the one Ais- 
chines had marked out for him, though, in one respect, it was 
precisely the one which A‘schines said he would take. He 
postpones the questions of official accountability and of the 
proclamation. But Aischines also predicted, he would promise, 
if the judges would allow mien his own order, that he would 

10 


114 


take up those points in the latter part of his speech. But De- 
mosthenes was too sagacious to do this. He nowhere alludes 
to these points, nor betrays the least consciousness of their be- 
ing difficult, or that it was necessary to postpone them. He 
simply demands his rights. But, yet, although he gives no in- 
timation of its importance to him, the movement, by which he 
postponed the strictly legal points until he had made a favora- 
ble impression upon the feelings of his judges, is quite unpar- 
alleled. Lord Brougham speaks of it with enthusiastic admi- 
ration. “The great skill of this movement, by which he at 
once takes up his position on his own ground, and there fights 
the battle, instead of fighting it on the very disadvantageous 
ground chosen by his enemy, is worthy of especial observation. 
Napoleon’s movement at Wagram resembled this, and was 
attended with equal success. The Austrians had been prepar- 
ing for weeks to fight on one ground; he made a sudden and 
- unexpected march which let him fight on another.” 

The First Part of the argument treats of matters which De- 
Contents of mosthenes contends are foreign to the indictment. 
First Part. ΤῸ consists of two portions, of which the first relates 
to the attacks of A‘schines on his private life, and the second 
to the peace of 346, B.C. (See p. 97 for an account of this 
First Part.) The contents of this part of the argument are 
arranged with the nicest care, such as implies forethought and 
deliberation. The skilfulness of this arrangement will appear 
from the following analysis. 


§ 9. PARAGRAPH PREPARATORY TO THE BRIEF DEFENSE OF 
HIS PRIVATE LIFE. 


Ἔ δίωκε refers to the indictment, κατηγόρησεν, to 
the speech, of Aschines. woo6ovhetuatos, the Senate's 
decree. See p. 88. οὐκ ἐλάττω λόγον, no fewer words. 
ἀνήλωκε, not, “employed,” as Lord Brougham, but, wasted. 
It refers to a useless employment of words. See §§ 140, 270. 
But since he has wasted no fewer words in going through other 
things. τὰ πλεῖστα, that is, of the other things. “Das 
meiste davon.” Past. xatewsbtoato, has fabricated 
against me. Καταψεύδεσθαν means, 1. to lie, 2. to make up a 
lie, to fabricate, as here, and 8. to lie about a thing, to misrep- 


115 


resent or falsify, as in 817. This last meaning, though in Pas- 
son, (etwas unrichtiges oder unwahres von einen Sache spre- 
chen), is not in Lippent and Scorr, ἀναγκαῖον -- δίκα- 
tov. Notice the emphatic position of these words, the unem- 
phatic being thrown between, thus enabling the voice to give 
the emphasis with greater ease. Nucxssary, do [ consider it 
to be, and sust. Compare— 


“ He seemed 
For pianiry composed and high ExPxorr.” 


“Fir audience find, though rew.”—Mitrton, 


Goayéa sinesity, to say a few things, rather than “to speak 
briefly,” as better according with οὐκ ἐλάττω. ἔξωθεν, ἐγγοίθ- 
vant. Compare § 34, ἔξω τῆς γραφῆς, out of the writ,—out of 
the record. ἀλλοτριώτερον, with feelings too alienated. 
ἀκούη μου. “Junge ἀκούη μου (ex me audiat) τῶν ὑπὲρ 
τῆς γραφῆς δικαίων." ΒΒΕΜΙ. 


The art with which Demosthenes finds his apology for treat- 
ing of irrelevant matter, in the example of Aischines, has been 
imitated by Cicero in his oration for Sylla. “Sed jam redeo ad 
causam ; atque hoc vos, Iudices, testor: mihi de memetipso tam 
multa dicendi necessitas queedam imposita est ab illo. Nam, 
si Torquatus Sullam solum accusasset, ego quoque hoc tempore 
nihil aliud agerem nisi eum, qui accusatus esset, defenderem : 
sed cum ille tota illa oratione in me esset invectus, et cum initio, 
ut dixi, defensionem meam auctoritate spoliare voluisset, etiam 
si dolor meus respondere non cogeret, tamen ipsa causa hane a 
me orationem flagitasset.” Pro Sulla, § ΧΗ. 


§ 10-11. Derense or Privare Lire. 


τῶν ἰδίων, “vita privata.” Bremt. But, better, those 
personal scandals, referring to the specific calumnies of Aischi- 
nes. Aovdogotmevos θεθδλασφήμη κε. Demosthe- 
nes, in drawing a distinction between κατηγορία and λοιδορία 
distinguishes, also, these words. Katyyog’a—Impeachment— 
has for its object offenses for which there are punishments or- 
dained by the laws, but howWogia,—Invective—has for its object 
scandals—bhaognules—such as enemies naturally utter of each 
other. § 123, also, 8126. «Δοιδορία, therefore, may be regarded 


116 


as the more general term, and 64aoqyula, as the more specific. 
Perhaps, in the present case, λοιδορούμενος is used with reference 
to Aischines, as acting the part of a calumniator rather than of 
a prosecutor. ἁπλᾶ καὶ δίκανα instead of ἁπλῶς καὶ 
δικαίως, which are used in § 58, without diversity of meaning. 
μηδὲ φωνήν, endure not a word, that is, from me. Hndure 
not a word even, not, though I have managed all public matters 
preéminently well, but rising up, condemn Now. The sentences 
in this oration are constructed with such consummate art,— 
with such a perfect union of perspicuity and foree—that, al- 
though the meaning is almost always obvious, the difficulty of 
translation is next to insuperable: The student should aim: at 
a word-for-word translation, with only such variation as the 
idiom or usage of our language requires. A translation for the 
English reader might be made on a different principle, but the 
scholar should seek to transfer the original sentences with all 
their condensed expressions, as far as possible, into correspond- 
ing English ones. In the above sentence, there are several 
things which are noticeable. (1.) Although in itself it is equally 
proper to say, “endure not the voice,” yet the usage of our lan- 
guage requires another expression, as, endure not a word. 
Again, (2.) the Greek has a great advantage over the English 
in the frequent omission of the pronoun, although in sentences 
which are to be spoken, pronouns, even in our language, may 
often be omitted, with advantage, as, perhaps in this case ; 
rising up—condemn—now. It may, also, (3.) be remarked 
that the English prefers the fuller form of expression—the verb 
and an object—to the simple verb. Naturally, the fuller form 
is more emphatic, and the rule is so laid down in regard to 
Greek, but it may be doubted whether it is so, in general, in 
English. Thus, in the present case, we might translate the 
verb, καταψηφίσασθε by, “pronounce condemnation,” but the 
simple verb, “condemn” is more forcible. Once more, (4.) both 
the Greek and English make frequent use of the participle to 
express an action coéxistent with the action expressed by the 
verb, by which means the sentence becomes much more com- 
pact ; but sometimes the one language will use the participle 
and the verb, where the other will use two verbs, and contrari- 
wise. Thus here, Lord Brougham translates, “but rise up 
this instant and condemn me .”—a most admirable translation. 


117 


The pronoun though used, is almost an enclitic, and would 
scarcely be heard in the utterance of the sentence. Attention 
to these three things, the pronoun, the simple verb, and the 
participial construction, will be of great use to the student. 
ἀναστάντες, rising up, without the formality of a vote. 
ἐκ Geitedyvw-r, that is, γονέων, Utpran. This is a common 
form of expression. See § 126, tis Gy καὶ τίνων, It refers not 
to a noble but a virtuous parentage, which the Greeks highly 
esteemed. Hence the proverb, ἀγαθὸς ἐξ ἀγαθῶν, ἄριστος ἐξ ἀρίσ- 
των. Dissen. Καὶ τοὺς ἐμούς, that is, γονεῖς. ὈΠΡΙΑΝ. 
ὑπειλήφατε, understood, from common report, 7.27.» ὦ σ- 
xeté&, know, of your own knowledge. κακοήθης, “malt- 
tiose ingeniosus.” ScuanFeR. We can not express the play on 
the words, κακοήθης, εὔηθες, φήθης, cunning as thou art, O 
Ei'schines, thou wert very simple in thinking. xatewsabdov 
καὶ δείδαλλες, lied about (see Note, ὃ 9), and traduced. 
diabéiiey, to throw across or over, hence, figuratively, to cause 
to pass ignominiously before men, like the Latin, “ traducere per 
ora hominum,” to traduce. τῆς δὲ πομπείας. Hopi, 
ὦ procession, such as took place at the festival of Bacchus, in 
which those engaged in it were wont to attack the spectators 
with ribaldry and abuse, from the carts or waggons in which 
the procession went. Many forms of speech, and proverbs, ex- 
pressive of insulting invective, grew out of the practice. Hence, 
Demosthenes says of Aischines, 6o%s, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἁμάξης, § 122, 
you cry out, asif from a cart. Hence, the verb πομπεύειν, 
§ 124, to use opprobrious language, and, from the verb, the sub- 
stantive, πομπεία, scurrility. tis ἀνέδην οὑτωσὶ yeye- 
νημένης, so licentiously indulged in. We must depart from 
the simplicity of the original word, γεγδνημένης, and render by 
some more forcible word, as endulyed in, or, with Lord Brough- 
am, by introducing a figure, “poured forth.” Goviowsevors. 
For the “special Grecism” of this participle in the dative, see. 
Burrmann, § 136, N. 6, Kiunur, ὃ 284, 10, c. 


The dignity and sincerity of this appeal impress us; nor can 
we help believing that the confidence which Demosthenes thus 
reposed in the good opinion of the people was well founded. 
But we may look at it in another point of view, and in this we 


118 


Characteristic Shall recognize an illustration of that characteristic 
of Demosthenes. of our orator, by which he makes the most of every 
refutation, and pressess every point to the utmost. It was not 
enough that by this appeal he annihilated at a blow all the per-_ 
sonal charges which his opponent had brought against him ;— 
he enforces upon the mind of his judges the sweeping inference 
that they should, therefore, distrust everything that he advanced. 
Nor was it enough in this way to disparage the character of 
his opponent ;—he takes advantage of the opportunity to ap- 
peal to the past kindness of the people to himself, and to im- 
plore their favor in the present trial. Nor does this satisfy ;— 
he even affects to believe that Aischines had indulged in these 
Invectives as a mere rhetorical artifice, to divert him from the 
more important topics of his public life; by which artifice, 
however, he did not mean to be caught. 

We may also notice with what a fine sense of decorum the _ 
orator, in saying that after the examination of his public meas- 
ures, he would return to these invectives, adds the precaution- 
ary remark, ἐγ you shall be pleased to listen. Nor was this a 
random promise. The retort upon A’schines was doubtless 
already prepared and arranged. When we come to the Third 
Part, we shall find him saying—-schines has chosen to inveigh 
not to accuse, but it is not fair he should have any advantage 
even in this ; and, therefore, without farther leave asked, he pro- 
ceeds to the retaliation, by invectives unparalleled in keenness | 
of satire, and polish of style. 


§ 12-16. ParaGRAPH PREPARATORY TO SPEAKING OF PUBLIC 
MATTERS, 


Demosthenes, in this paragraph, seeks to disparage Aischi- 
nes as an accuser. This he does on the general ground that 
Aischines had instituted this trial, not to do.the state a service, 
but to avenge himself on a personal enemy. . 

Τὰ wév—tov δέ. The orator contrasts the severity of 
the charges with the motives for making them, and τὰ μέν----τοῦ 
δὲ introduce the contrasted clauses... Katyyogyuéva, such 
as treason and bribery. ἐνίων, not governing ὧν, but added 
to it as an adjective, limiting its application. WrEsTERMANN. 
But we may render, some of which. ἐχθροῦ μέν---τῶν 


119 


μέντον. These correspond. W. Dixporr. They imply ac» 
cording to Dissen, a contrast between the real object of the ac- 
cusation—the injury of a personal enemy—and what would 
have been the object of an honest accusation—the punishment 
of the crimes. But the latter part of the contrast is only im- 
plied by a clause proving the fact that the accusation did not 
_ seek to punish the crimes, since the state could not do it. 
“Orimina quidem—rt&é uéy—objecta magna sunt gravibusque 
peenis obnoxia, sed—rod dé—hzee accusatio hostilis quidem— 
ἐχθροῦ uév—yvexationis et petulantiz et convici et contumelize 
et talium rerum plurimum habet, pcenas vero—péyto-—istas 
not querit, scilicet, erimina vero insimulata etiamsi vera essent, 
ne possunt quidem puniri, ut pateat poenas ab eo non spectari 
istas.” Dissen. Zhe things charged are many and severe, and 
there are some for which the laws assign great and most severe 
punishments, but the design diself of the present trial has for 
its object at once the abuse and the disgrace and the insult and the 
division of an enemy, and all such things ;—since indeed, of the 
accusations and charges which have been mentioned, of they were 
true, it 1s not possible for the state to take a befitting punishment : 
—implying, of course, that Atschines was not seeking to pun- 
ish the crime, but to injure an enemy. For, if the state for 
any reason can not punish a crime, the prosecution must be a 
malicious one. 0% y &g introduces the argument which proves 
§ 13 that the state can not take under the present circum- 

* stance a befitting punishment for the crimes alledged by 
Aischines. The argument is this. The state can not properly 
punish without giving the accused person an opportunity to 
make his defense. Now, Afschines had so managed that De- 
mosthenes had been deprived of this privilege, and therefore 
the state can not now fairly punish him. Demosthenes first 
enforces the fact. λόγου τυχεῖν, “audientiam impetrare,” 
Inpex Graciratis. ἐν ἐπηρείας τάξει, Τάξις, the proper 
place or. rank to which anything belongs. Hence, ἐν ἐχθροῦ 
τάξει, in the rank of an enemy, as an enemy. Adv. Lept., ἃ 481. 
So here, as a matter of abuse and envy. See, also, § 68, ὃ 258, 
τοῦτο, that is, to come before the people, or in other words, 
to use the privilege granted, to speak, out of enmity and envy. 
ὀρθῶς ἔχον, δίκανον, repeated below, $15. τῆς ὀρθῆς 
καὶ δικαίας ὁδοῦ. πολιτικόν, befitting a citizen, that is, of 


120 


a free state, or, as we might say, in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of our government,—in the spirit of our institutions. 
Constitutional. Kunnepy. . Statesman-like. Lord Brovenam. 
For, tt is not proper to take away the opportunity of coming 
before the people and getting a hearing,—this in terms 15 
general, but aimed at Adschines who had deprived Demos- 
thenés of this right,—nor to do this out of malice and envy—as 
¥schines is now doing, a clause thrown in to give the sentence 
a more personal bearing. The orator then proceeds to impress 
this sentiment by a solemn reiteration—WVo, by the gods! it is 
not right, nor citizen-like, nor just. But how did Atschines de- 
prive Demosthenes of his right of coming before the people and 
obtaining an opportunity of speaking in his own defense? This 
appears from what follows. It is in substance this. Criminal 
charges should be brought against specific, definite acts, for 
which there are precise punishments in the laws; should be 
brought at the time they are commmitted; should be brought 
against the person who is guilty of them. But Aischines 
never brought any indictment against Demosthenes at the time 
the crimes charged are said to have been committed ; nor does 
he, now that after so long a time he brings an impeachment, 
bring it against Demosthenes, but against Ctesiphon, an inno- 
eent third party. In these three ways, then, by bringing the 
impeachment against Ctesiphon and not against Demosthenes 
personally, by postponing the charges to so remote a period, by 
_ bringing them all in a mass without specification, had Atschines 
deprived Demosthenes of the privilege of a personal and legal 
defense ; had, therefore, disabled the city from taking a befitting 
punishment; had, therefore, convicted himself of seeking not the 
good of the state in the present trial, but the gratification of 
envy and spite against a personal enemy. Dissen and others 
‘suppose that A‘schines deprived Demosthenes of this right of 
defense solely by his impeachment of Ctesiphon, but the course 
of thought in the paragraph seems to require that the 
other causes mentioned above should be included. But, to 
proceed, Demosthenes has shown what A‘schines had done, but 
which, if he had been an honest accuser, he would not have 
done. He now shows what he should have done, but which, 
since he was a dishonest accuser, he had not done. ἐτραγ ῴ- 
dev καὶ διεξήεν. Often, one of the two verbs which are 


121 


joined together denotes the manner of the action expressed Ὁ 

the other. Zragically recited. There is'an allusion in étgayo- 
dev, to the early profession of A’schines, who was an actor. So, 
also, in ὑποκρίνδταν. below, and frequently elsewhere. παρ’ 
αὐτά. “Ko tempore quo injuria patrata est.” Brum. χρῆσ- 
θαυ, governed by ἔδει, “ supplendum e pregresso det.” Sonan- 
FER. εἰσαγγδλίας. Εἰσαγγελία, “is an information laid 
before the senate or Assembly, and the consequent impeachment 
and trial of state criminals under novel or extraordinary circum- 
stances ;”—for offenses for which the laws had made no provis- 
ion or an uncertain one. It was also used in some other cases. 
It is obvious that we have no process very closely corresponding 
to this, and therefore no appropriate word with which to trans- 
late, δἰσαγγελία. Yet, it seems better to select a word, having 
some analogy to it, than merely to change the Greek into an 
English word. τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, that is, in the pecu- 
liar way of the εἰσαγγελίαᾳ. γράφοντα, γραφόμενγον. 
These words illustrate the usage of these two forms of the verb. 
Τράφειν παράνομα, to propose illegal resolutions, γράφεσθαε 
παρανόμων, to impeach for illegal resolutions. - Bremi_recog- 
nizes jn γράφοντα παράνομα, παρανόμων γραφόμενον what he 
calls ἃ lusus verborum. οὐ γὰρ δήπου, The connection 
will appear, if we repeat from the preceding,—me, I say—for 
surely. οὐ δύναταν is the logical predicate of both parts of 
this sentence. Thus, for surely, that he is prosecuting Crmst- 
pHon through me, but me myself—tué—aitdr, separated by tme- 
sis—if he had thought to convict me, would have forborne to 
impeach—otx ἂν ἐγράψατο----ξ not possible. Grammatically, 
Aisylyys is the subject of δύναται, and in- the second member, 
οὐ δυνατὸν is supplied from the preceding. This clause serves 
as a transition to, and a concealment of, the repetition of the 
foregoing thought in the following sentence. OvéGadie may 
be rendered by an adverb as above, calumniously went 
ὃ through with. τιμωρίαν, punishments fixed in the 
laws themselves. t&aeti wea, both punishments fixed in the 
laws and those assigned by the judges, in cases where the laws left 
it to their discretion. Thus, τἀπυτίμια was too general to apply 
to vduor, and τιμωρίαν not general enough to apply to ἀγῶνες, 
and κρίσεις. Hence the division in the sentence into laws and 
the punishments ordained by them,—into actions and trials for 

11 


122 


particular transgressions, with the penalties following them. 
From Dissen. τοῖς πρὸς ἐμέ, “scilicet, νόμοις, ἀγῶσι, καὶ 
τοῖς τοιούτοις." Brumi. The legal remedies. ἡ κατηγορία, 
that is, the accusation brought under these circumstances, not 
the present one. The accusation would have been proper, and 
his conduct in bringing it, honest. ὑποπκρίνεταν, plays a 
8 15 part; is not a sincere, honest accuser. The sentence, 
᾿ viv δ᾽... ὑποκρίνεται, condenses and reiterates the whole 
of the preceding paragraph. The first clause—but now having 
departed from the straight forward and just way, and shunning 
the proofs at the time of the events themselves—repeats what he 
had just said as to Aischines’ not having done what he should 
have done—; the next clause-—in heaping up at such a late 
hour charges and scoffs and invectives,—gives an example of 
Aschines’ doing what as an honest accuser, he should not have 
done, and which was stated in general terms at the opening of 
the paragraph; while, the single expression—he plays a part,— 
repeats the original proposition, that A%schines had only in 
view in the trial to harrass an enemy :—thus giving a beautiful 
" unity to the whole. κατηγορεῖ, seeto 89,1. Kelves, 
puts this man on trial, like ἐδίωκε, 89,1, προΐσταταυ, he 
makes his hostility to me prominent throughout the whole trial. 
But Dissen, “ Causam totius accusationis facit mimicitiam m 
me.” But this clause seems to refer to the speech of Atschines, 
not to the indictment, and is only a fuller explanation of κατη- 
γορεῖ. Hence, it expresses the character of the speech rather 
than of the indictment. ταύτη ν, refers to ἔχθραν. &mute- 
μίαν. If Ctesiphon should be convicted, he would become a 
public debtor to the amount of the penalty, and if he could not 
pay, would be deprived of all his rights as an Athenian citizen. 
In exposing him to this risk, A‘schines may be said to have 
sought to take away from him these privileges. It may be ob- 
served that this last clause is a more full development of the 
thought expressed by xglvev. This sentence then is constructed 
in this way. ‘The antithesis is first stated generally, by the two 
verbs, κατηγορεῖ and κρίνει, and then each member of the an- 
§ 16 tithesis is enlarged by the following contrasted clauses. - 
᾿τὸν ἐξετασμὸν ποιεῖσθαι, spoken of the liti- 
gants, but ἐξέτασιν ποιεῖν, of the judges. § 226. ἑτέρῳ, by 
attraction, for ἕτερον, Burr. $151, 4. Her. ad Vie. p. 889. 


128 


The preceding section furnishes a good illustration of the two 
modes of Repetition of Thought, mentioned by Whately in 
his Rhetoric. The first is simple Repetition, with reference to 
Illustration of the enforcement of the thought, by bringing it a 
nee. second time before the mind ;—by “ affording such 
an expansion of the sense to be conveyed, and so detaining the 
mind upon it, as the case may require.” “Cicero among the 
ancients,” according to Whately, “and Burke among the mod- 
ern writers, afford, perhaps, the most abundant practical exem- 
plifications of this rule.” But with respect to a rule which 
requires the utmost caution and judgment in its application, 
Demosthenes is a far safer guide than either. The second mode, 
is that of condensing at the end, in a short and pointed sentence, 
what has been fully expanded, in the preceding part, of the 
paragraph ;—we shall meet with many exemplifications of this 
in the subsequent portions of the oration. Wuartety, Part 11, 
Chap. 1, ὃ 2, also. Chap. 2, ὃ 8. 


_. This section furnishes, too, a good illustration of a Common 
Depreciationof Topic of oratory, especially in the oratory of free 
an Opponent. gtates,—of what Whately calls, the Depreciation of 
an Opponent. Waarety, Part 11, Chap. 3, ὃ 4. There are many 

rounds for such depreciation, but none more common, or, 
when well founded, more just, than the charge that the prosecu- 
tor has personal motives in the case, or at least, some other mo- 
tive than the good of the state. Demosthenes in several places 
dwells upon the fact that Aischines did not prosecute the char- 
ges against him, at the time the alleged criminal conduct took 
place, and each time draws a different conclusion from the fact 
of this postponement. Here, he infers that Atschines brought 
the present suit, merely to harrass a personal enemy; but far- 
ther on, ($125), when he felt more certain that Ctesiphon 
would be acquitted, he infers that he designed to give a secret 
stab at the state itself, by his apologies for Philip and his con-_ 
demnation of the state; and, finally, when he had triumphantly 
justified the policy of the state, and placed it far beyond the 
attack of Alschines, he can find no other motive for the suit 
than as affording a field for the display of his oratory. § 226, 
280. 


124 


817. APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TOPICS, AND TRANSI- 
TION TO THE ARGUMENT ITSELF, 


ἐ π᾿ ἀληθείας, on the ground of truth, the thing spoken 
of being conceived as resting upon the truth. Kiuner, § 296, 1. 
κατ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους, during those times, re- 
ferring to a period of time; πρὸς τὸν ὑπάρχοντα xat- 
ρόν, with respect to the existing occasion or emergency. You 
should be acquainted with the general state of things at the 
period in which the peace was made, in order that you may 
judge of each individual event according to the existing emerg- 
ency which occasioned it. This sentence contains the necessity 
and the propriety of what was proposed, the proposition itself, 
and the end in view, and this, as most important, is placed last. 


This section serves chiefly as a transition to the consideration 
of the peace, but contains, also, an unexpected inference from 
the preceding remarks,—a farther application. We have al- 
ready referred to this practice as one of the characteristics of 
Demosthenes. ὃ. 1-2, p. 105, 3. § 10-11, p. 118. The present 
instance is a fine example of it. Demosthenes is not satisfied 

- to leave it to his hearers to infer, that charges, preferred by a 
man who is governed solely by personal enmity, and who was 
so eager to reach his enemy that he did not hesitate to strike a 
blow at an innocent third party, must be both. unjust and 
false ; he carefully draws that inference himself, and forces it 
upon their attention. : 


§ 18-52. Transactions oF THE PEACE. 


For the history of this period, see Historical Sketch, § XVI. 
Demosthenes arranges the several topics of this portion of his 
speech with great skill, and carefully keeps each distinct from 
the other. He divides the whole into three general divisions ; 
the Negotiation of the Peace, § 18-24; the Ratification of the 
Peace, § 25-41; the Consequences of the Peace, § 42-49. Each 
division is variously subdivided in the same careful way, but 
these subdivisions will appear in the following analysis. 


125 


§ 18-24, Necorration or tHe PEAcr. 


§ 18-20, Srare oF THINGS WHICH LED THE ATHENIANS ΤῸ 
ASSENT TO THE PEACE, 


Tot γὰρ Φωκικοῦ πολέμου, For the origin of this 
war, see Hist. Sketch, § XIII, 45-47. οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἐπ.ο- 
Avtevounyv mw tote, Demosthenes’ first speech before 
the Assembly, the speech περὶ συμμοριῶν, was not made till 354, 
B.C., which was after the commencement of this war. See 
Hist. Sketch, § XIV, 54. ot—zo, “Szepius οὔπω sic dirimunt. 
Inprimis notabile quod legitur p. 230, 27, οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε, x. τ. 4, 
ScHarrer, ad p. 348, 5. καίπερ οὐ δίκαια ποιοῦνγ- 
τας. This refers to the plunder of the Delphian temple; and 
we may notice with what nice sense of decorum the orator 
speaks of the Phocians, who had been ancient allies of the 
Athenians, but whose conduct in plundering the temple at Del- 
phi was condemned throughout the Grecian world. ὁτιοῦν, 
any thing whatever, any extremity. There had always existed 
ill-will between the Athenians and the Thebans, which grew to 
be very violent after the battle of Leuctra, though it was some- 
what moderated by the alliance which was formed between the 
two states just before the battle of Cheronea. ofs γὰρ εὐ- 
τυχήκεσαν, their success, or, perhaps, better, good fortune, 
implying of course the use of the power which that success gave 
them. “Ceterum ἃ εὐτυχήκεσαν ἐν Aedbetoors, Principatum 
Grecie vides esse, quem isto preelio consecuti erant.” Dissen. 
οὐ μετρίως. The Thebans used their power with great arro- 
gance and cruelty, especially in their treatment of the Boeotian 
cities, Plateea, Thespiz, Orchomenus. of μισοῦντες Aa- 
κεδαυιμονίδυς, such as the Messenians, Arcadians and 
Argives. of πρότερον Ou ἐκείνων ἄρχοντες, re- 
ferring to the decarchies which Sparta established in the several 
cities and states, after the Peloponnesian war. Hist. Sketch, I, 
5. ἄκριτος, “xoluev carens, h. 6. diremptione.” RetsKx. 
Unsettled. παρ᾽’ ἑκάστους, that is, each state. ἐν οἷς, 
“seilicet, χρόνοις." Dissen. ἐν οἷς == ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις ἐν οἷς. 
But Westermann, “inmitten,” ἐν οἷς = ἐν τούτοις &, κακῶς. 
ἐφρόνουν, “dissidebant.” Dissen. παρεσκευάζετο, 
is a very fine word here, but disfiquit to express. Philip was 

11 ἐς 


126 


making ready, putting himself in a position, for future action. 

Then, through the mistakes and dissensions of others, himself was 
getting ready to act, and growing strong against all. ὁ φύετο, 

This verb means fo grow, as plants, and hence, figuratively, to 
grow in power. “Invalescebat adversus omnes.” Reiske. of 
tote μὲν refers to the time after the victory at Leuctra, 
viv δ᾽, since the destruction of Thebes by Alexander, in 335, 
B.C. Cagsis, overbearing. “ Insolentes,’ Dissrn. κατα- 
φεύγειν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. The orator here substitutes what 
must have been his own most ardent wishes at the time, for the 
historical fact. ἐπηγγείλα το, of course secretly, to the The- 
bans. ὀλίγου δεῖν, construed with ἑκόντας, almost wil- 
lingly. πόλεμον συνεχῆ , that is, the long protracted 
Amphipolitan war. διὰ ταῦτ᾽, construe with ἐπράχθη, where- 
fore the peace then acceded to was made under these circumstan- 
ces, not through me, as this person charges. τὰ δὲ corresponds to 
μὲν οὖν, the contrast being between the peace which was not 
made by him, and the crimes which were committed in it by 
the opposite party. ἐν αὐτῆ, that is, the peace, but embrac- 
ing the whole transaction both of the negotiation and of the 
ratification. 


The sentence, ἔπειθ᾽ ἡ elonévyynoos....taoayt, 
is a fine example of the most perfect form of the period. The 
Perfect form of Orator first states the general proposition—that all 
the Period. —§ _Peloponnesus was divided—next lays down two 
particular propositions that are contained in the general— 
that neither the enemies of the Lacedemonians were strong enough 
to destroy them, nor were those who had formerly been established 
an power by them, masters of the cittes—and finally returns to 
the original proposition, repeating and enlarging it—but there 
was an unsettled quarrel and confusion, both among them and 
ALL THE OTHER Greeks. This form of the sentence is often 
very elegant in English, though we should probably, in accord- 
ance with the asyndetic character of English style, omit the 
connecting particle between the general and the two particular 
propositions. Thus, Ald Peloponnesus was divided ;—neither 
those who, &c. 

We have another example 1 in this section. In the sentence, 
τί οὖν ovyyywrloato ,,. ὑπηκούσατε τῷ Φιλίππῳ, the orator be- 


127 


gins by saying, in the form of a question, that the Athenians 
were almost voluntarily deceived by the proffer of peace which 
Philip made; he next gives the causes of this, drawn from the 
conduct of the other Athenian states ; and then ends with the 
inference, that under these circumstances, they were prepared to 
listen to Philip. ᾿᾽Ολίγου δεῖν ὑμᾶς ἑκόντας, and ἑτοίμως ὑπη-- 
κούσατδ, express different shades of the same thought. 

tatta 0’ 600r..... ἐπηγγδίλατο. This is the 
simplest form of the period. It is the form called by Aristotle, 
λέξιν διηρημένην, Division, in which the contents belong to the 
same subject-matter, and the several members of which are 
parts of one whole. Τὴ the present case, there are three mem- 
bers, as is indicated by the punctuation, and each relating to 
Philip. It is the conduct of Philip, the whole of which is di- 
rected by the same ambition to one common end, that gives 
unity to this sentence, for in each member there is a different 
phase of his proceedings. In the first, he is fomenting disturb- 
ances among the Greeks ; in the second, he is availing himself 
of these disturbances, and preparing for further action ; in the | 
last, he strikes the blow which he had been preparing for. In 
periods of this kind two things are necessary; the first, that 
there should be some common principle, uniting the members 
together, and, the second, that the last clause should contain 
within itself some obvious and sufficient reason for the division 
stopping where it does. In the present case, the division ter- 
minates with the last act in the series, so far as the present sub- 
ject is concerned—the Peace. Dichotomy and Trichotomy are 
the most perfect form of this sentence. 

There are two other subordinate purtiohlass which may be 
noticed in this period. 1. We notice that the two participial 
clauses, ταῦτα δ᾽ ὁρῶν and χρήματα ἀναλίσκων are not connected by 
a conjunction, the reason of which is that they sustain different 
relations to the principal verb, ovvéxgove, the former that of the 
occasional, and the latter, of the instrumental cause. 2. We 
notice, also, that the proposition, expressing the end which 
Philip had in view in the proffer of peace and alliance precedes 
that proffer, in accordance with the rule that the position of 


such clauses depends upon their rhetorical value in the sen- 
tence. ~ 


128 , 


This section contains a very fine example of what was called 
Argumentative by an ancient rhetorician, ἡ διήγησις ἀποδεικτική, 
Narrative. the Argumentative Narrative, or, as it might be 
called, the Statement of the case. It consists in such a selec- 
tion of facts and such a combination of them into one whole 
as to make the conclusion drawn from the statement appear in 
itself plausible, by showing a sufficient ground for it in the or- 
dinary principles of human nature. There is a weight in the 
statement beyond what is due to the sum total of the individ- 
ual facts. It is distinguished from a mere narrative of events, 
inasmuch as its object is, to establish a conclusion, not to give 
information, or to please, or to affect the feelings. 

We have seen that the Peace of 346, B.C., was most calam- 
itous to Greece. But of all the parties who were concerned in it, 
none were really so much to blame as the Athenians themselves. 
It was their love of ease that enabled Philocrates and A‘schines 
and their partizans to deceive and betray them. Hence, De- 
mosthenes, in denying the charge that he was the author of the 
peace, was obliged to represent the ease in such a way as not to 
offend the pride of the people. In exculpating himself, he aims 
to exculpate them. In doing this, he seeks to produce the con- 
viction that the peace grew naturally out of the circumstances 
in which they were placed, and of course without any fault on 
their part. Every thing is made to contribute to this single 
impression. 

The orator first introduces the states which were the leading 
parties in the Phocian war, and represents the Athenians, though 
by no means indifferent, yet not sufficiently ardent to interfere 
and end the war. He next speaks of the remaining parts of 
Greece, and here he represents Peloponnesus distracted by con- 
tending parties so as to afford a fine field for the arts of Philip, 
but no hope of assistance to the Athenians in resisting him. 
Thus far, it would seem the Athenians could have very little 
motive for not making a peace with Philip. The orator next 
» introduces Philip himself as fomenting these dissensions, and 
taking advantage of them to get ready himself for any emerg- 
ency, and, then, at last, when the Thebans were about to have 
recourse to the Athenians, interposing and offering peace to the 
Athenians, and aid to the Thebans. But how happens it that 
the Athenians accepted this offer? This is the critical point in 


129 


the statement, but the preceding remarks had prepared the way 
for an answer. The orator puts the case thus :—what codpera- 
ted with him, and made you almost voluntarily deceived ?—not 
your weariness of the war, and want of success, not the superior 
skill and power of Philip, but the conduct of the other Grecian 
states. No language can more precisely or more beautifully 
express the state of mind which the Athenians are said to have 
been in, than the phrases, ὀλίγου δεῖν ἑκόντας, and ἑτοίμως ὑπη- 
κούσατξ ; nor could any concurrence of circumstances be better 
adapted to make such a state of mind appear natural than those 
which the orator has brought together. But the orator was 
not satisfied with leaving the matter here; he immediately adds 
a most significant proposition—that it was not the peace after 
all, which had wrought the mischief, but the corruption of Ais- 
chines and his party in it. He does not attempt the proof of 
this position here; he throws it out merely as a relief to the 
feelings of the audience, as exculpating. the people from all 
blame. He enters upon the proof of the proposition in § 42, 
where he states it in the very. words here employed. 

This section is deserving of the closest study. There is 
scarcely anything more important in oratory, to the lawyer, to 
the divine, to the statesman, to the argumentative writer gen- 
erally than skill in “stating a case.” The oration abounds in 
examples. ὃ 60-62; § 145-148. 


> 
§ 21. ΤῊΝ Agents IN MAKING THE PEACE. 


ἀκριθολογοῦμαν, denotes the manner of the action ex- 
ressed by διεξέρχομαν, and makes it more specific, like ἐτραγῴδεν 
in ὃ XII. 7 carefully go through with. “Weighing and sifting.” 
Lord BroveHam, who always in such instances endeavors 
to translate the two Greek verbs by corresponding English 
verbs, although sometimes without the conjunction, τὰ mu &- 
Avota, construed with ἀδίκημα. ἐν τούτοις. Demos- 
thenes uses the demonstrative pronoun ia a very general manner. 
It may refer to anything which is implied in the preceding, or 
which could be pointed out at the time of speaking. ἀδίκημα. 
This paragraph is not to be regarded as advancing the proof of 
the assertion in the preceding sentence, that it was the corrup- 
tion of Aischines and his party which was the cause of all their 
present sufferings. This subject is formally taken up after- 


180 


wards. ᾿“δίκημα, therefore, does not refer to ἀδικήματα, but is 
to be taken generally of any wrong in these transactions, “4 9- 
ἐστόδημος. “Fuit unus ex clarissimis tragoedis istius 
temporis, per totam Greeciam cognitus.” Dissen. Hist. Sketch, 
SXVI ἐκδεξάμενος, took it from him, seconded. 7 94- 
was, moved resolutions, μετά τούτου, with Aischines, 
according to Kunnepy, but that is not certain, δεαρραγῆς 
ψευδόμενος, split with lying, or, perhaps, split lying. It 
refers to Aischines’ violent exertion of the voice in speaking, 
which Demosthenes often ridicules. #y@ δ᾽ οὐδέν. We 
have seen that Demosthenes did haye considerable to do. with 
the peace; that he did nothing is only true, when spoken of 
him as a leader. } 


a 

Demosthenes, here, introduces a second argument to prove 
that he was not the author of the peace; he appeals to facts 
and declares who the leaders in it were. The preceding argu- 
ment was drawn from the nature of the case, or, in other words, 
from the antecedent probability in the matter. When argu- 
ments of each of the two classes, “antecedent probability” and 
“sign or example” are used, the former should most usually be 
employed first. See Wuarsty, Part τι. Ch. 3, §4. The stu- 
dent, who directs his attention to this rule of arrangement, will 
find its application to be more nearly universal than he might 
at first suppose. It is founded in the nature of the mind, which 
is ever more ready to receive a fact for which a reason has been 
previously seen. ak 


§ 22-24. ANswER TO THE CHARGE oF Aiscuines THAT Dz- 
MOSTHENES HAD PRECIPITATED THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND PRE- 
VENTED THE STATE. FROM MAKING THE PEACE IN CONJUNC- 
TION WITH THE OTHER STATES. | 


ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας. See Note to 817. ὡς 
ἄρα ἐγώ, “that 1 ἐπαοοα." ἸΚὕηπεκ, ὃ 824,3, ἃ. “Age expresses 
in this instance, not the conclusion drawn by “ἘΒΟΒΐη65, “that 
therefore Demosthenes”—but as it were the instantaneous con- 
clusion of the speaker as to the absurdity of the charge. It . 
can be best expressed by the tone of uttering ἐγώ, “ Forsooth,” 


131 


by which it is sometimes rendered, is too strong. wet& κοι- 
νοῦ συνεδρίου. For an account of the new confedera- 
tion of the Athenians, and for the congress of allies held at 
Athens, see Hist. Sketch, § VII. 22. eit —“O quid dicens 
quis te recte appellet?” Vierr, ui. κι. 1x. Ο by what fitting 
name? πρᾶξεν, “hoc est, τὸ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην μετὰ κοινοῦ 
συγεδρίου τῶν “Ελλήνων. SCHAEFER. τὴ» τῶν Ελλήνων 
xovrvwylayv, the common alliance of the Greeks, with reference 
to preventing the Athenians from making the peace in conjunction 
with the general convention of the confederate and other states, 
§ 23 éSehnheywévor. There is doubtless something of 

' reproach in this word. It means not only that their 
feelings had been revealed, but that these feelings were little sat- 
isfactory to the orator. B@t for a long time they had been 
shown what they were; had shown themselves unreliable. τῆς 
§ 24 ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰρήνης, the former peace, in opposition 

"to the peace of Demades. Hist. Sketch, ὃ ΧΥ ΠῚ, 84. 
Aischines uses the same expression, περὶ τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰρήνης, 
§ 60. ἡγεμὼν οὐδ’ αἴτιος. These words are emphatic ; 
the leader and author. With respect to the general congress 
of the Grecian states, which A‘schines makes so much of, there 
was no probability of any thing being accomplished by it. If 
Aischines referred to the embassies which were sent mto the 
several Grecian states after the destruction of Olynthus, as he 
probably did, then, the failure of the attempt to unite the Greeks 
in a league against Philip must have been known, by the time 
the Athenian embassy returned from Macedonia, with the terms 
on which Philip was willing to make a peace. Hence, Demos- 
thenes was right in saying that there was no embassy sent at 
that time. It is probable, however, that some of the embassies 
may not have returned, and, hence, Aischines under cover of 
this fact might claim that a general congress of the Greeks 
would have taken place, if the treaty had been delayed. But, 
however this may be, there was no probability of any such co- 
operation, and Aischines in urging it, is only availing himself 
of ἅ common sophism, to cover up his own treachery and cor- 
ruption, by charging his opponent with criminality in not taking 
advantage of some supposed opportunity of action, 


182 


This section presénts a good example of the manner in which 
Demosthenes manages refutation, and suggests some remarks 
upon his general practice in this respect. | 

1. He is atways Brier, and that whether the refutation con- 
_ sists of a single argument, as in ὃ 10-11, or, as here, 

‘of several. We may observe in the present instance, 
how compactly the arguments are crowded together. The first 
argument is the absurdity of the supposition that he who had 
nothing at all to do with the peace, should have precipitated 
the negotiations, which is an example of what Whately calls 
Indirect Refutation. Pt. I. Chap. m1. §7. The second is drawn 
from the inconsistency of Aischines himself, if the charge were 
true, in not exposing the misconduct of Demosthenes at the 
time. The third asserts the impossibility of the charge, because 
it was not a fact that there was any such general assembly to 
be held at the time ;—and all these arguments are stated with 
so much conciseness, that there are hardly more clauses in the 
sentence than there are arguments. This is the orator’s uni- 
form practice. He prostrates his adversary by a single blow; 
and this, partly, as showing with what ease he can overthrow him, 
and, partly, because refutation is not the main business of the 
speech, and should, therefore, take up but little time. 

2. Demosthenes not merely refutes, but makes the refutation 
an occasion of arrack. We have already had an example in 
§ 10-11. Here, too, we see with what foree Demosthenes re- 
torts upon Adschines that the charge which he brought against 
himself was in reality a calumny upon the city. An argument re- 
futed goes for nothing, as Whately says, but an argument which, 
instead of being against yourself, can be shown to be against 
your adversary, has a double point. It places you in the posi- 
tion of victory, and triumph over your adversary. 

3. Demosthenes seems to reserve certain arguments of Ais- 
chines which can be turned into ridicule, for particular places, 
as if to give relief to the more sober parts of the speech. At 
intervals almost regular, we meet with ridicule, and sarcasm, 
and sneer, retorted upon Aischines, for something he had said. 
See § 28: 50-52: 82: 122: 180: 232: 248. 

4. Demosthenes introduces refutation INCIDENTALLY, not for- 
mally. He does not take up the arguments of A‘schines in the 
order in which he brought them forward, nor in connection 


Refutation. 


188 


with the subjects to which they relate. He chooses his own 
place and time, when he can best answer them, and when the 
refutation will be most effective. 

5. Nor does Demosthenes confine himself to the refutation of 
IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS. He takes such as he can make good 
use of. The object of refutation with him is not merely to over- 
throw arguments which are decisive of the issue against him, 
but also to make the refutation the occasion of advantage over 
Aischines. He uses refutation as a mode of depreciating his 
adversary. With this in view, Demosthenes often takes up 
mere illustrations and examples, not because they are of any 
importance in themselves, but because he can triumphantly 
retort them, or make some unexpected application. Aristotle 
has remarked upon the importance of attending to any error 
your opponent may make. He says, “it is necessary if he has 
erred in any thing, though it be irrelevant, for this would make 
it probable he might err in other things.” Lib. 3,17, 4. 

6. Demosthenes recognizes the fact that orators often throw 
out things on purpose that they may be answered, in order to 
divert attention from the more important points. 811. In 
nothing is the accomplished disputant more apparent, than in 
the care with which he excludes every thing of a doubtful na- 
ture, or which is not necessary to the case; nor, in any thing 
is the skill of the sophist more frequently exhibited than in the 
dexterity with which he seizes upon the opportunity afforded 
by irrelevant topics in his adversary’s argument, to turn atten- 
tion from the real points at issue. For an instance of the latter 
kind of skill, see a criticism upon the controversy of Junius 
with Sir William Draper, and with Horne Tooke, m the “ Lec- 
tures on Oratory and Rhetoric,” by Jonn Quincy Apams, Lect. 22. 


«-. 


§ 25-41. THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY. 


§ 25-30. Tue parts wich DremosTtHenes anp AtscHINES 
TOOK IN THE RATIFICATION. 


Ἐπειδή. Now then, after that the city made the peace, 
again consider what each of us thenceforth—évtat0a—chose to 
do. Govhetwy, “hocest, Govlevtis Gy.” SCHAEFER. τοὺς 
agéco6euvcs, who had been already appointed. οὗτον δέ, 

12 


184 


but THESE cared not,—saw not fit—to do this, notwithstanding 
even my decree. There is a slight degree of irony in this use of 
ἠθέλησαν. τί δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἠδύνατο; “What was the effect 
of this?” Kennepy. But, rather, what was the force—the 
meaning—of this? that is, of my resolution. “ Quod hoc sibt 
volebat.” Dissen. Demosthenes speaks of this decree in his 
speech Περὶ Παραπρεσύείας, §154.. “As no new Assembly 
could be held, and these men had not gone, but were lingering 
here, I proposed a decree as senator, the people having given 
full power to the senate, that the embassadors depart at once, 
and that the commander Proxenus transport them into what- 
ever places they might learn Philip to be; proposing it im the 
very words I now use.” τὸν μεταξὺ χρόνον, the inter- 
val of the oaths, that is, the interval between the taking of the 
oaths at_Athens,—dg’ ἧς ὠμόσατε ἡμέρας----αὐᾷ. the exchange of 
the oaths with Philip, by which the ratification would be com- 
pleted. ἐξελύσασθε, a significant word. You released 
yourselves from all the preparations of the war, as if from some 
heavy burden. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο. τοῦτο---ὕπως ἂν ὁ χρόνος 6 μδ- 
ταξὺ ὡς πλεῖστος γένοιτο. WESTERMANN, from Reiske, ἐπραγ- 
ματεύετο, but he all the while worked especially at.this, that 
is, to make the interval as long as possible. The longer Philip 
was in Thrace, the better for him, the shorter, the better for them. 
ὅσα τῆς πόλεως. Tig πόλεως pendet ab doa.’’ BREMI. 
ταῦτα τὰ χωρία & νῦν οὗτος διέσυρε, referring to 
the following passage in Atschines. οὗτός ἐστιν, ὦ ADnraior, 6 
σιρῶτος ἐξευρὼν Légguoy τεῖχος καὶ doglaxoy καὶ ᾿Εργίσκην καὶ 
Μυρτίσκην καὶ Γάνος καὶ Davida, χωρία, ὧν οὐδὲ τὰ ὀνόματα 10 Ete 
μὲν πρότερον. § 82. οὕτω takes up and embraces all that 
precedes, under these circumstances. τοὺς ἐπικαίρους, 
the well-situated of the places. “Situm idoneum eorum laudat 
in littore Thracio, unde classes Atheniensium rex excludere vole- 
bat, etiam Chersonesum et Hellespontum 5101 subjecturus.” 
Dissen. πολλῶν μὲν χρημάτων, with reference to the 
Thracian mines. πολλῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν, with refer- 
ence to mercenaries. The contrast implied by μέν and δέ can 
not be preserved in translating. 4éysr, ἀναγιγνώσκει, 
These verbs are synonymous, neither reads nor mentions. 6ov- 
λεύων, as a senator, that is, officially. προσάγειν. Em- 
bassadors were permitted to appear before the Assembly only 


185 


by a formal vote of the senate. Aischines, περὶ παραπρεσθείας, 
$58. θέαν, a seat, “platz im Theater.” Passow, not in Lip- 
DELL and Scorr. Θέαν κατανεῖμαι, to assign a seat, θέαν κατα- 
λαμθάνειν, to occupy a seat. §572. “The places for generals, 
the archons, priests, foreign embassadors, and other distinguished 
persons were in the lowest rows of benches, and nearest the 
orchestra.” Smirn’s Greck and Roman Antiquities. The privi- 
lege of these front seats, which was either hereditary, or official, 
or conferred by special appointment, as well as the seat itself, 
was called προεδρία, and was bestowed upon foreign embassa- 
dors, only by a resolution of the senate. τὸν ἀρχιτέχτονα, 
called, also, θεατρώνης, the lessee of the theater to whom the 
entrance-fee was paid, and who was bound to keep the building 
in repair. He paid a small rent to the state. Bacxn’s Public 
Economy of Athens, Bk. τι. Chap. 13, p. 220. Demosthenes 
refers to the following passage in Aischines. “᾿ Ὑπόλοιπον δέ 
μου ἐστὶ τὴν κολακείαν αὐτοῦ διδξελϑεῖν. “ημοσϑένης γὰρ éve- 
autov βουλεύσας οὐδεμίαν πώποτε φανεῖταν πρεσβείαν εὶς προδδρίαν 
παλέσας, ἀλλὰ τότε μόνον καὶ πρῶτον πρέσβεις εὶς προεδρίαν ἐκά- 
Asoe καὶ προσκεφάλαια ἔϑηκε καὶ φοινικίδας περιεπέτασε καὶ 
ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡγεῖτο τοῖς πρέσβεσιν εἰς τὸ ϑέατρον, ὥστε καὶ συ- 
ρίττεσϑαν διὰ τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην καὶ κολακείαν." ὃ 106. This im- 
mediately precedes the passage, which is translated in the In- 
troduction to these Notes. p. 93. It will be observed that 
Aéschines does not speak of the resolution to introduce the em- 
bassadors to the Assembly. It may also be noticed that Ais- 
chines uses the term προεδρία, as he does in the περὶ παραπρεσ-- 
θείας, ὃ 281, while Demosthenes, with reference, perhaps, to 
ἐθεώρουν, prefers θέα, which was, also, a more fitting word for 
him. The reviewer of Lord Brougham’s Translation has well 
given the meaning of this passage. “ But what ought I to have 
done? to have proposed not to introduce to the Assembly those 
who had come for the very purpose that they might hold a con- 
ference with you? or, to command the Lessee of the Theater, not 
to assign them a seat?” ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν ὀβολοῖν, “In 
spectaculis vulgaribus duorum obolorum.” Reiske. It means 
the common seats as opposed to the seats of honor. Bacxu, 
Bk. π. Chap. 13, p. 223, in the two obol seats, τὰ μυκρὰ 
συμφέροντα τῆς πόλεως. Although the lessee received 
the entrance-money, yet, says Beeckh, “it might have been 


180 


enumerated among the national profits, inasmuch as he paid δ 
rent to the state. “Apparet, quam acerbe Orator adversarium 
subsannet de re levissima loquens satis graviter.” * * * “Melli 
est Demostheni identidem insectari τοὺς δύο ὀβολούς." ScHAEFER. 
hive λαβών. Our idiom requires two verbs, take and 
read. VWHbIX MA. There has been much discussion 
with respect to the genuineness of the public documents in this 
oration ; without entering into that question, it will be sufficient 
to give the opinion of the latest editor of Demosthenes on this 
point. “ Mihi, etiamsi quis ea omnia, que nimis incerta sunt 
et in diversas partes disceptari possunt vel justo cupidius objecta 
sunt, qualia plura in Droysenii commentatione jure notarunt Vce- 
melius‘et Boehneckius, missa faciat, tot remanere videntur non 
dubia serioris originis imperitzeque interpolationis documenta 
ut non dubitem in eorum concedere sententiam, qui ficta ea 
omnia esse judicarunt.” W.Dinporr. χρηστοί. Ironical. 
ἐξόν. Accusative absolute. Kituner, ὃ 312, 5, it being pos- 
sible that they. μᾶλλον δέ. It is indifferent whether the 
correction be considered in contrast with that which is corrected, 
as in Greek, but, rather, or, as the alternative of it, as in Eng- 
lish, or, rather, λαβόντας, construed with the accusative 
before ἀφῖχθαν and σῶσαι, 


We have seen with what care Demosthenes follows out any 
particular fact or argument into every possible application. Not 
Mode of stating less worthy of notice is his mode of stating facts. 
facts. That mode is not to multiply, but to dwell on facts; 
to present the same fact in a variety of ways. The present sec- 
tion furnishes a good illustration of this characteristic. 

The orator contrasts his own conduct with the conduct of 
Aéschines and his party. It is his object to magnify 
the importance of his efforts to hasten the ratifica- 
' tion of the peace by Philip. This he does by dwelling on the 
injury which delay would inflict upon the Athenian interests in 
. Thrace ; and he presents this subject in four different points of 
view. 1. Standing at the point of time, at which, on the delay 
of the embassadors, he proposed his decree, that they should set 
sail at once, he looks-at the inaction of the Athenians relieving 
themselves ofall the burdens of the war, and at the energy of 


Illustration, 


187 


Philip, preparing to seize the possessions of the Athenian state. 
It is this view of existing circumstances, which gave the occa- 
sion of this important decree. 2. He next states the end he had 
in view in preparing the decree ;—not, in general terms, that 
Philip might be prevented from seizing Athenian possessions, 
but specifically, that he might not become master of Thrace. 
3. He next states the result which followed the neglect of this 
decree ;—that Philip became master of Thrace, and, 4. the 
results which would have followed obedience to it. Thus, we 
have, in regard to the same transaction, the occasion, the end 
proposed, and the results both actual and possible. Thus, by 
presenting this fact in several points of view,—and every fact 
may be looked at, in its cause, occasion, medium, circumstances, 
and results—and dwelling on each, the orator gives a much 
more vivid idea of the fact. See Whately, Part II. Chap. 1. 
§ 2; Chap. u. ὃ 7. 

It should be observed that this mode of statement does not 
Not a mere Consist. in mere repetition, which is always, offensive. 
Repetition. The different parts are kept distinct. It can hardly 
be doubted but that the sentence,—é ἐγὼ προορώμενος * * * * 
anohaufivery—was repeated, in order to separate the occasion 
of the decree from the end in view; nor, but that the whole 
- topic in § 28, and the reading of the psephism were intended 
to separate both from the results. | 

This section is a fine instance of the periodic form, not of a 
Form of the Sentence, but of an argument. He proposes in the 
Statement. heoinning, to consider what each party did. He 
made a motion that the embassadors should administer the 
oaths to Philip without delay; Aiscuryzs and his party in the 
embassy; delay the ratification. He then dwells, in the manner 
we have seen; upon his efforts to hasten the ratification ; and 
ends as he began, with stating what he did, but briefly,—raira 
γράψαντος ἐμοῦ * * * Cytovvroc—and more fully what they did. 

With respect to § 28, see Refutation, under § 22-24. 


qyvreErss 
Eades eT: se 


Library. , 


4) το 4. 
f ΟΝ τοῦ - 


eee 


12* 


188 
§ 31-49, CoNSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE. 


ἢ 31-41. ImMepIATE CONSEQUENCES IN THE DESTRUCTION OF 
PuHoctis. 


The immediate consequence of the peace was the destruction 
of Phocis. But as this was brought about not merely by the 
delay of the embassy, but, also and principally, by the corrup- 
tion of the majority of the embassadors, and as Demosthenes 
dwells more upon the instruments than upon the results, it 
might be better, perhaps, to arrange this topic under the gene- 
ral head of the conduct of the embassy on the Ratification of 
the Treaty ;—their second crime, as Demosthenes calls it. But 
this is merely a question as to the name to be given to a series 
of topics, which follow in perfect order, as will appear from the 
analysis. | 

ὃ 81. Transrrion. 


τὸ μὲν τοίνυν-- ἕτερον δ᾽; κλέμμα wiv—do- 
ροδόκημα δέ. While we can not fail to notice how com- 
pactly the clauses of this sentence are bound together, we must 
despair of giving the same compactness to the translation. 
Such, then, in the embassy was tux ¥rirst—fraud of Philip 
_ indeed, but, also, bribery of these impious men ;—but A SECOND 
CRIME immediately after, behold still greater than this. δωρο- 
δόκημα, bribery. Passow, not in Lippett and Scorr, who 
give, “a bribe,” as the only meaning. πολεμεῖν καὶ dva- 
φέρεσθαι, to fight and quarrel, an anti-climax, which the 
ancients, says Kennedy, were not so careful to avoid, as are 
modern writers. We intentionally point out the sentences of 
transition, as Demosthenes manifests great care and skill in 
passing from subject to subject. 


$32. Corruption OF THE EMBASSADORS AS A BODY. 


παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὅπως μὴ ἀπίωμεν. He buys from 
them, that is, from Aischines and his party, that we, that is, 
the entire embassy, should not leave. It will be remembered 
that Demosthenes was on the embassy. This explains the 
phraseology. ἐξέλθοιτε,. “᾿Εξέρχεσθαν proprio sensu dic- 
tum, contra hostem egredi.” SCHAEFER. ὥσπερ πρότερον. 
See Hist. Sketch, ὃ XIII. 51. 


189 


§ 33-39. CoRRUPTION AND TREACHEROUS CONDUCT. OF 
AisCHINES. 


ἣν ἐν φόβῳ καὶ πολλῆ ἀγωνίᾳ, instead of the 
simple verbs, φοδεῖσθαν and ἀγωνιᾶν, as more forcible, This is 
a general principle. Thus in Latin, in spe, in dolore, terrore, 
metu, tumultu esse, are more forcible than the simple verbs, 
sperare, dolere, etc., especially where a state of being is ex- 
pressed. The same is true in English—c&&v6 καὶ δέομαι. 
See Note to §5. ἕτερον, other than to the indictment. 
8. 34 ἕτερον ἐπιτειχισμόν, ὃ 87, “alius generis.” SCHAEFER. 
" pounod&, “ὀλίγα, pauca.” Scuanrer. 0+’ οὕς, See 
above, where δε’ ὧν is used. The former denotes the cause, the 
§ 35 latter the instrument. The sense is substantially the 
* same, but when speaking of Philip’s hiring Atschines as 
his agent, he prefers the genitive, to announce things through 
the instrumentality of which, but when speaking of what Ais- 
chines did, in the fulfillment of his treacherous bargain, he uses 
the accusative, as denoting the cause by which, every thing was 
destroyed. This, however, is a distinction which can not be 
well given in a translation. μάλα σεμνῶς ὀνομάζων, 
as he very gravely phrases it. διὰ τὴν τόθ᾽’ ὑποῦσαν 
ἀπέχθεναν, the then existing hatred. The idea of a con- 
8. 36 cealed hatred is not implied in ὑποῦσαν ; their feelings 
* towards the Thebans were no secret. χρυσίον, gold, 
that is, coined gold. τὴν μὲν ἀπέχθειαν τὴν πρὸς 
Θηβαίους, that is, felt by the Thebans, where as in $36, it 
is, felt towards the Thebans. “ Civitas nostra odium incurrit, 
Philippus gratiam tulit.” ScHAEFER. 


§ 33. οὕτω δ᾽ ἦν...... ἀπώλετο, What are the princi- 
pal thoughts in this sentence? They are three; the anxiety of 
Philip, the object of that anxiety, and the measure to which that 
anxiety led, the hiring of Aischines. Observe how each of these 
thoughts is magnified beyond what was necessary merely to 
communicate the thought. The anavety of Philip is magnified by 
the use of a fuller form of expression than the simple verb; the 
oect of that anxiety, lest the Athenians should vote to aid the 
Phocians before he destroyed them, is strengthened, first, by the 
participial clause expressing the pains he had taken to secure 


140 


that end, and, secondly, by the added proposition,—éxqiyoe 
τὰ 1odyuata,—which repeats in general terms what had just 
been specifically stated ; and, finally, the hire of Aischines 15. 
aggravated by the contrast in the clause,—ovx#ér, xow7 μετὰ 
τῶν ἄλλων πρέσβεων, ἀλλ᾽ Ἰδίᾳ καθ᾽ αὑτόν----ὐνὰ by the four solemn 
words, δι᾽ ὧν ἅπαντ᾽ ἀπώλετο. 

§ 86. τοὺς μὲν Dundas . . . Φιλίππῳ, The orator having 
asked what happened after these promises, this sentence con- 
tains the particulars which made up the whole event. These 
particulars may be divided into two classes; the direct results 
to the Phocians, the Athenians and Aischines, and the indirect | 
results arising from the different views which should be taken 
of the destruction of Phocis. Hence, the sentence is divided 
into two larger members at λαβεῖν, But so different are the 
results to Phocis from those which happened to the Athenians 
and to Aischines, that the first larger member is divided into 
two parts which are put in contrast,—tovds μὲν Φωκέας, ὑμᾶς δ᾽ 
—the first being appropriated to the Phocians, and the latter, 
to the Athenians and A‘schines. So, too, the indirect. results 
are of two kinds, hatred and favor, and hence the second mem- 
ber is divided into two contrasted parts, τὴν μὲν ἀπέχθειαν, τὴν 
δὲ χάριν. Most even of the better editions read τοὺς μὲν Tahaun- 
ὦώρους Φωκέας, but the best Codex omits the adjective, and its 
omission is more in harmony with the perfect simplicity of the 
sentence. Demosthenes had himself seen the miserable condi- 
tion of Phocis, after it had been devastated by Philip, and in 
the περὶ παραπρεσβείας has described it in a sentence of great 
pathos, which may be compared with the present sentence. 
§ 65, p. 361. eo 

We may notice the arrangement of the topics in this para- 
graph, and with what care they are kept distinct. First, there 
is the hiring of the embassy to linger in Macedo- 
nia, till Philip got ready to strike the fatal blow 
against Phocis; then follows the bargain with Auschines to 
carry to Athens a false report and thus lull the Athenians into 
security ;—then the pause in the onward course of the thought, 
and, as if what he was about to say was too severe, the apology 
for saying it—then the treacherous speech, and finally, without 
preface or warning, the destruction of Phocis, the alarm of the 
Athenians, and amidst all this ruin and terror, Aéschines him- 
self taking his pay. 


Order of Topics. 


141 


8 40-41. ΟὈΝΟΙΌΒΙΟΝ OF THE TOPIC OF THE IMMEDIATE CON- 
SEQUENCES OF THE PEACE, 


moos τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ συμμάχους, that is, tothe Thebans 
and Thessalians. “Has publice scriptas litteras rex haud dubie 
etiam cum Thebanis et Thessalis communicavit.” W. Dixporr. 
Construe with δηλοῖ καὶ διορίζεται. Gyet’ ἐκείνους ha. 
βών. This verb and participle are frequently used in conjunc- 
tion by Demosthenes, and denote, to seize and force along by 
some sudden and irresistible force. He hurried them along. 
“ Animos illorum rapuit ita ut nihil eorum, que posthac age- 
bantur, sentirent.” Bremi. εἰς τὸπεῶὥστε. W. Dinporr. of 
ταλαίπωρου, referring to the Thebans. Many editions in- 
sert Θηβαῖον. “Que continuo sequuntur de calamitate The- 
banorum, arguunt, opinor, oratorem ἢ. 1. Θηβαῖον addidisse.” 
ScHAEFER. τῆς πίστεως, that is, in Philip, by the The- 
bans and Thessalians. Compare above, ἐμοὶ δὲ πιστεύσετδ. But he 
841 who worked and toiled with him—att6—in getting up this 
᾿ confidence. καὶ διεξιὼν ὡς olxted, and recites 
how pitiable. “Quam ea miserabilia sunt, commemorat.” Vor. 
καὶ τούτων, and that, too, of these calamities,—that is, of the 
Thebans—and of the sufferings of the Phocians, and of what- 
ever other evils the Greeks suffered, or Au, himself being cause ; 
---ἁπάντων αὐτὸς dy αἴτιος. κτήματ᾽. See a fuller statement 
In περὶ παραπρεσβείας, ὃ 386. ἐξητούμεν, that is, was de- 
manded by Alexander, after the destruction of Thebes, to be 
surrendered, with others, into his hands. 


§ 42-49. Proors THAT THE CRIMES OF AISCHINES AND HIS 
PARTY IN THE PEACE WERE THE CAUSES OF ALL THE SUB- 
SEQUENT SUFFERINGS AND THE PRESENT CALAMITOUS STATE 
OF THINGS ; OR, THE REMOTE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE. 


ἐμπέπτωκα, as if unintentionally. ἐπάνευιμν. See 
§20. ἐξηπάτησθε. Notice here the repetition of an im- 
portant word in the same sentence. For another instance, in 
which παρέσχετο is repeated, see ἃ 238. φωνὴν ἤκουον, 
with a meaning like φωνὴν ἀνάσχησθε, in§10. ὑφορώμενοι 
8.43. τὰ πεπραγμένα, καὶ δυσχεραίνοντες, look- 


142 


ing with suspicion upon what was done, and indignant. ἤγετε 
tiv εἰρήνην. Even Demosthenes advised to do so in his 
speech περὶ εἰρήνης. See Hist. Sketch, Ρ. 68. κα Lot ἄλλοι 
δὲ "Eiinvec, There is an opposition between the manner 
in which the Athenians and the manner in which the other 
Greeks kept the peace. You kept the peace reluctantly, but the 
other Greeks,—dhhov dé—even—xol—gladly, πδρενών, “hos- 
tili exercitu hue illuc se vertens.” Dissen. See Hist. Sketch, 
§SXVIL ἐκ τῶν πόλεων, “Prepositio ἐκ posita est propter 
β verbum δαδίζοντες. Nam ad articulum, ad quem supplend- 
" um est participium ὦν, ponenda esset preepositio ἐν, or ἐπί," 
Bremt. See, for a similar use of ἐκ, §145,218. ἐπὶ τῆ τῆς 
δἰρήνης ἐξουσίᾳ, “pacis auctoritate et licentia freti.” 
Reisxe Inder Gr, ὅποι πεμφθείην, with reference to 
the numerous embassies of Demosthenes. See Hist. Sketch, 
SXVIL αἱ δὲ πόλεις ἐνόσουν. This figure, though 
similar expressions have almost lost their figurative force with 
845, US is placed by Hermogenes, as quoted by Reiske, among 
those, which τραχύνουσι τὸν λόγον, make the style harsh. 
Demosthenes uses the same figure in the περὶ παραπρεσθείας. 
νόσημα γὰρ, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿.«4θηναῖοι, δεινὸν ἐμπέπτωκεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ελ- 
λάδα. ὃ 424, τῶν δὲ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ πολλῶν, sunt sy- 
nonyma ; sed oratoris est hujusmodi pleonasmis abuti, inpri- 
mis quando concinnitatis studium abundantiam poscit verbo- 
rum.” ScHAEFER, who not unfrequently expresses his indigna- 
tion at this abuse. But Dissen thinks otherwise, ‘“ Bona vero 
est et consulto posita hee latitudo dictionis.” Schaefer seems 
the safer counsellor, τὰ μέν, τὰ ὃ, “ partim”—*partim.” 
Tovovtovl tu πάθος, some such a state,—which 1s ex- 
plained by what follows, each thinking, ἄς. πλὴν οὐκ. The 
full expression is found in another passage of Demosthenes ; 
πλέουσα πανταχόσε, πλὴν οὐκ εἰς ᾿“θήνας. p. 1290. SCHAEFER ; 
that the danger would come everywhere else, only not upon them- 
selves. “ Nun nicht.” Passow, with reference to this passage. 
διὰ τῶν ἑτέρων κινδύνων, “periculis que alis immi- 
nent.” ScHAEFER. 8 ἷ τ᾽, expresses here mere sequence. ol was, 
Then, if I mistake not.” “Ni fallor.” Retske. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπει- 
β 47 δὰν τῶν πραγμάτων, but after that he who seeks 
* to rule has made himself arbiter of affairs, he ἐδ master 
also—xal—of those who sold them. καὶ utosi καὶ ἀπεσ- 


“πὶ τῷ alle 


148 β | 


tet καὶ προπηλακίζει, Observe that these verbs are 
used without an object; they should be translated without one. 
Compare the following sentence. “They,” King, Lords and 
Commons, “are the trustees, not the owners of the state. The 
fee-simple is in us. They can not alienate, they can not waste.” 
πᾶσα ἡ οἱκουμένη, the whole Grecian world. “Terraa 
Grecis habitata.’ Retsxe Index Gr. ἀπερροιμμένον, “ ὑπὸ 
“Φιλίππου. ScHAEFER. τούτους ---ὑμῖν. “Notasubi- 
t ; pe ” ὃ 49. 
am. conversionem a tertia persona ad secundam.” ScHaz- 
FER, τὸ ἔχευν ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ, the having of that on the occasion 
of which, secured to you traitors and hirelings an opportunity to 
take bribes. καὶ διὰ τοὺς πολλούς ---ἀπολύώλειτε. 
«ἀπά ἐξ is through these people—that is, now present—and through 
those who have resisted your counsels,—that is, the orators and 
leaders who had opposed Philip—that you are safe, and on 
hire, since left to yourselves,—ot& ye ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, in which notice 
the limiting force of ye—you would have perished long ago. 
“ Per maximam partem civium et per nos oratores vestris mach- 
inationibus obstantes.” Dissen. “Nam, si per vos solos staret, 
dudum fame enecti periissetis.” SCHAEFER, 


ὃ 50-52. ConcLUSION OF THE First Parr OF THE ORATION, 


ὥσπερ ἐωλοκρασίαν---κατασκεδάσας, having 
spirted over me a stale mixture, as it were, of his own wickedness 
and crimes. πρὸς τοὺς νδωτέρους, in the presence of 
those too young to have known personally the transactions. As 
the termination of the Phocian war, and the events connected 
with it, were fifteen years before, and as the dicasts were not 
required to be over thirty years of age, some of the court might 
not have had personal knowledge of these matters. παρην ὦ- 
χλησθε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, but you, too, were annoyed, per- 
haps, that is, as well as myself. “Sed ipse ceperat molestiam, 
cum illa juniorum causa enarrare cogeretur.” Scnarrer. He 
of course refers here to the judges who remembered these events. 
καὶ viv εἶπέ που λέγων, and just now remarked, using 
these words. “ Dixit his verbis utens.” Dissen, 


144 


§ 42-49. This section may be regarded as a statement of the 
condition of Greece which grew out of the Peace, and which 


led to its subjugation ;—a statement corresponding to that mm _ 


§ 18-20, which gave an account of the circumstances which led 
to the Peace—thus giving the same periodic form to the whole 
topic of the peace, which he has given to particular paragraphs 
and sentences. The proposition, which the orator undertakes 
to prove is, that the bribery and treachery of Aischines and the 
Macedonian faction in the transactions connected with the peace 
were the real causes of this subjugation. The orator first in- 
Order of the troduces the Thebans and Thessalians exulting in the 
Thoughts. peace and hailing Philip as their friend and benefac- 
tor, and then the Athenians, in contrast, disappointed and in- 
dignant, yet keeping the peace, because they could do nothing 
alone ; and, finally, the other states, the Peloponnesian states, 
of Greece, gladly acquiescent in this state of things. And they 
thus acquiesced, because they were in part ensnared by their 
love of ease, and in part betrayed by their leading men, who 
had sold themselves to Philip. And what was the result? 
They find they had sold their freedom for ease and pleasure— 
but that which opened the way for Philip to get a foothold in 
Greece south of Thermopyle, and thus to corrupt the states of 
Greece, was the bribery and treachery of those who betrayed 
the interests of Athens, and connived at the destruction of Phocis. 
And this brings us to one of the most celebrated portions of 
the speech—the fate of the traitors. Not only had the traitors 
sold their country, they had sold themselves also. The orator 
explains the reason of this, in the statement of a general prin- 
ciple of human nature. This principle he proceeds to fortify 
by an appeal to the fate of individual traitors. But the orator 
in the rapidity of this fierce invective suddenly pauses, and 
turns the whole current upon the traitors in Athens. But this 
is not enough. Carrying his hearers along with him as he 


must have done with irresistible force, of a sudden, he comes ᾿ 


down upon Aischines alone,—separated from the other traitors 
—and winds up the topic with sneer and contempt. 

§ 50-52. We have seen that this first Part of the speech 
treats of matters, which the orator contends are irrelevant to 
the case. It is interesting to notice how carefully this impres- 
sion is kept up through the whole of it. At the outset, he 


v2 


145 


speaks of the necessity which Atschines, in bringing in matter 
foreign to the indictment, had imposed upon him, of entering, 
also, upon irrelevant topics. Then, about midway, in ὃ 34, he 
pauses, and apologises for traveling out of the record, laying the 
blame as before on Aischines; finally, at the conclusion, he 
speaks of the reluctance with which he had gone over those 
calumnies, and says he had done so, only because some of the 
dicasts might not have been personally acquainted with the 
transactions. Nor is there any, the least thing to weaken the 
impression, that this whole topic is in reality what it profess 
to be—a topic irrelevant to the case. ι 

In the review of this portion of the speech, the student can 
not fail of being struck with the order of the topics and the care 
with which each is kept distinct—the negotiation of the peace ; 
the mismanagement of its ratification, by which the Athenians 
lost their possessions in Thrace; the corruption of the embassy, 
and of Atschines in particular, by which Phocis was destroyed ; 
and the remote consequences of the peace, by which the whole 
of Greece was subjugated under Philip. We may notice, also, 
that it winds up with bitter contempt and ridicule. See Re- 
marks to ὃ 22-24. 


§ 53-125. Szconp Parr or THE ARGUMENT. 
ΤῊΝ ANSWER OF DEMOSTHENES TO THE [MPEACHMENT. 


We prefix a general analysis. After the paragraph of transi- 
tion follows the statement of the points at issue, and the order 
of the discussion of these points. Next comes the defense itself, 
divided into two parts; the defense of his public life, and the 
defense against the purely legal charges. The account of his 
administration of public affairs is divided into two; an account 
of his foreign, and an account of his domestic, administration. 
The defense against the legal charges is two-fold; a defense 
against the charge of illegality in crowning one, who is under 
obligation to pass the public scrutiny for official conduct, and, 
also, against. the charge of the illegality of the proclamation. 
We thus arrange the topics : | 

I. Transition, § 53. 

II. Statement of the Points at issue, and the Order of the 
discussion, ὃ 56-59. 

13 


146 


ΠῚ. Administration of Demosthenes, § 60-109. 

1. Foreign Administration, § 60-101. 

2. Domestic Administration, § 102-109. 

IV. Discussion of the strictly legal points, ὃ 110-122. 

1, Discussion of the question of Accountability, § 110-119. 
2. Discussion of the question of the Proclamation, § 120-122. 


᾿ §53. Transition. 


_ τοίνυν, expresses the propriety of passing to a new topic; 
ἤδη, at this time. περὶ τῆς γραφῆς αὐτῆς. «Αὐτῆς 
is emphatic; dy ztself, unconnected with irrelevant matter. So, 
also, in τὴν γραφὴν αὐτήν, below. Now then,—having finished 
what is irelevant—ZJ propose at this point to make my defense 
against the indictment itself. τὰ πεπραγμέν᾽ ἐμαυτῷ, 
that is, by myself, as the responsible minister. καὶ τούτων 
τῶν προδεδουλευμένων, to be construed with δωρεῶν. 
It refers to the Senate’s decree. 


§ 56-59. THe sTATEMENT OF THE POINTS AT ISSUE, AND THE 
ORDER OF THE DISCUSSION. 


“A μὲν διώκει τοῦ ψηφίσματος, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτῶν τούτων. The contrast introduced by μέν and δ᾽ is 
between these parts of Ctesiphon’s decree, as indicted by As- 
chines, and as made the basis of his whole defense by Demos- 
thenes. πρῶτον, at once,—the first thing I will do is to prove 
from these—not implying, as πρῶτον μὲν would do, a sequel cor- 
responding to it. πάντα, is to be taken in a general sense, 
not referring to the whole decree of Ctesiphon, which would 
require τὰ πάντα, nor to the three specific charges, but generally 
to every event embraced under them. δικαίως, By making 
his defense in a just way, the orator refers to a fair, or as Lord 
Brougham calls it, an honest defense, which shall elude no 
charge, but not necessarily be a complete justification ;—that he 
will make such a defense, he proves from the charges in the in- 
dictment, because he promises to take them up one by one, in 
order, and give an answer to each.: τῶν γεγραμμένων, 
that is, the charges in the indictment. περὶ πάντων, same 
$57 as πάντα, above. τοῦ μὲν οὖν γράψαι, construed 

"with τὴν πρίσιν. τῷ δήμῳ, construed with τὰ δέλ.- 


147 


Tote. ἐἔπαυν δῖν, connected by καί to δῖναι and διατελεῖν, and 

forming with them the object of γράψαν. ΖΤράψαν expresses the 

drawing up of the resolution, the remainder of the sentence, its 

contents; thus, Of this, that Ctesiphon wrote in his decree that 

J—. It will be observed that the subject of the verbs is changed. 

before éxacvsiy,—_that the senate praise me for these, though it 

may be better translated by the passive form, as is done by 

Scuarrer, “laudandum me esse.” With respect to the decree, 

that I have always done and said those things which were best 

for the people, and am ready to do whatever good I can, and 
that I be praised for these, the decision, I suppose, rests upon my 

political measures. Bremi and others connect ἐπαινεῖν with 
γράψαν and govern it by τὴν πρίσιν. site καὶ ψευδῆ. 

Kai expresses surprise that the alternative should be made; or 

even false, “ Ktenim in altero membro nunc additur xe/, nune 
non additur. Atque abest καί ibi, ubi paria vi membra. Ubi 

vero prius ex ambobus positis preefertur animo loquentis, additur 

καί in secundo membro.” Dissen. See cite καὶ μή, below. τὸ 

δὲ μὴ προσγράψαντα corresponds to τοῦ μὲν οὖν γράψαι, 

and contrasts the merely legal points with what belongs to the 

substantial merits of the case, τὸ Sé—xehetiour. This 

§ 58 whole sentence, in which the τὸ is taken with κελεῦσαυ, 

’ and στεφανοῦν and ἀνξιπεῖν are dependent upon it, is 

the subject before κουνωγεῖν, ScuarFER. Bremi construes thus, 
τό---στεφανοῦν καὶ κελεῦσαν ἀνδιπεῖν. «ἐπειδὰν τὰς ed. 
θύνας δῷ,’ is quoted from the speech of Aishines, § ὅ92, 
ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς νόμους ἐπέδειξα ἀπαγορεύοντας μὴ στδφα- 
νοῦν τοὺς ὑπευϑύνους, ἔπειτα τὸν ῥήτορα ἐξήλεγξα γράψαντα “1η-- 
μοσϑένην ὑπεύϑυνον ὄντα στεφανοῦν οὐδὲν προβαλλόμενον, οὐδὲ 
προσεγγράψαντα “ἐπειδὰν δῷ τὰς εὐϑύνας,᾽᾽ ἀλλὰ παντελῶς καὶ 
ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν γόμων καταπεφρονηκπότα. κουνωνδῖν μὲν has 
its corresponding clause in ἔτν μέντοι. ἐν τούτους, “inter hos 
cies.” Wor, “Lnconcione; οὗτον Demostheni sepe sunt ple- 
beii, populares, Honore in horum congressu, in Pnyce, plena con- - 
cione, in me conferendo. Magnum erat in oculis universe civi- 
tatis Atheniensis honorari. Hoc tam parvi faceret Demosthenes, 
ut preeteriret?” Reisxe, this latter clause with reference to some — 
manuscripts which omit the words. δικαίως παὶ ἅπλ ᾿ δε" 
For the same thought in the adjective form, 800 8.10. ἔγ - 
γνῶ πα, had determined. See §8, ἀπαρτᾶν, construed with 


148 


the accusative and genitive, to separate the defense from the im- 

59 peachment. εἰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις καὶ ho- 
ὃ "vous, not “my measures and my speeches,” as Lord 
Broveuam, but Grecian matters and their explanations. Adyovs 
gives prominence to a thought contained indeed, but not ex- 
pressed, in πράξεις ; I will not only speak of Grecian affairs but 
explain their causes and principles ; so that it does not deserve 
the charge of pleonasm, which Schaefer is so ready to bring 
against our orator. ἐμπέσω, not, unintentionally, as in § 42, 
but unexpectedly, that is, tothem. tot ψηφίσματος τό--- 
the article of the decree, that I say and do the best, similar to & τοῦ 
ψηφίσματος, ἴῃ $56. λόγους οἱκείους καὶ dvayxal- 
ους τῆ γρα φῆ, “necessario conjunctos cum accusatione, Op- 
ponuntur ἀπηρτημένοι τῆς γραφῆς. ScHAEFER, intimately con- 
nected with the impeachment. πολλῶν προαυνρέσεων τῆς 
πολιτείας, “many departments of public service.” Lord 
Brovenam ; such as, civil, financial, domestic, foreign, and the 
like. περὶ τὰς ᾿Ελληνιυπάς, the Grecian, or, as we might 
say, the foreign, as opposed to the domestic. See $109, where 
the distinction is expressed in full. 


In the opening of his speech, Demosthenes, as we have seen, 
put forth his whole power in imploring and demanding permis- 
sion to follow his own order of defense, and was successful. But 
coming now to speak of the indictment itself—having escaped 
from the irrelevant topics which had been forced upon him— 
he is again confronted with the claim of A‘schines, that he 
should follow the same order with himself. Here, however, he 
has a prompt answer. He professes he will follow the order of 
f¥schines—but the order of his indictment, not of his speech. 
A#ischines, in drawing the indictment, did not think of the order 
it would be useful for him to have Demosthenes follow; and 
Demosthenes takes advantage of the oversight. Indeed, the 
contradiction between the order of the indictment, and the order 
of the speech of A’schines was too important an advantage to 
escape the notice of a much less skillful orator than Demosthe- 
nes. But, what we may particularly notice, in the present in- 
stance, is the great economy with which Demosthenes husbands 
his resources. He might have brought in this consideration at 
the outset, where it would have been quite effective; but he 


149 


makes no allusion to it, reserving it for this place, where in con- 
nection with the indictment itself, it is still more effective. And 
thus, generally, instead of accumulating and commingling top- 
ics, the orator selects the best, dwells upon each separately, and 
introduces them only where they will be most effective. Upon 
this point, Lord Brougham well remarks ;—“the extreme im- 
portance to Dernosthenes’ case of the skillful movement, so to 
speak, by which he availed himself of Aischines’ error, and at 
once entered upon the general subject of his whole administra- 
tion, thus escaping the undeniable charge to which he had no 
answer, and overwhelming his adversary by a triumphant. de- 
fense on ground of his own choosing, required that he should 
again and again defend this movement, which he here does very 
carefully.” 

Having thus again triumphed, the next thing is to state the 
point at issue, and hence deduce his own order. And, here, he 
urges that the whole case turns upon the point of his public 
conduct, even the purely legal questions of Accountability and 
the Proclamation. But, still, though not necessary, he will 
show the laws which authorize Ctesiphon to do what he has 
done in this respect. It is in this slighting way that he always 
speaks of these really difficult parts of his case; and, it has been 
remarked, that “whatever is slightly noticed and afterwards 
passed by with contempt, many readers and hearers will very 
often conclude to be really contemptible.” Wuarety, Part 1. 
Chap. 3, ὃ 8. We may remark that, in stating the legal ques- 
tion as to crowning one who was liable to the official scrutiny, 
Demosthenes is quite unfair. A‘schines, after mentioning sev- | 
eral evasions of the law of “crowning,” and among them that 
of moving to bestow the crown only, “after the person shall 
have passed the official scrutiny,” adds that Ctesiphon had not 
even taken the trouble to imsert this proviso. His objection 
was, not that the illegality consisted in its omission, as Demos- 
thenes represents it,—with it, the decree would have been 
equally illegal—but that the omission showed disregard and 
contempt of the law. 

It is decided that Demosthenes shall begin his defense with 
an examination of his public conduct. But what public con- 
duct ’—not, the trifling matter of donations to the Theorie fund 
and the repair of the walls, not any domestic, city matter, how- 

13 3 


we. 


ever important, but his conduct in foreign, Grecian matters.— 
And, here, again he is careful to point out the relevancy of this 
topic to the defense, καί us μηδεὶς ὑπολάβη ἀπαρτᾶν τὸν λόγον τῆς 
γραφῆς.---- αὐ what Grecian matters? Not, all that were em- 
braced within the whole period of the contest with Philip, but 
those only, with respect to which he had the chief management. 
He thus, at length arrives at the precise and definite point of 
the discussion.—In nothing is the skill of an orator more seen 
than in the determination of the question; no. where is it more 
necessary to be perspicuous in statement and judicious in selec- 
tion. John Quincy Adams has well treated this topic in-his 
VII Lecture, “ On the state of the controversy.” 


§ 60-109. ApmrnistRATION oF DEMosTHENES. 
I. § 60-101. Forztan ADMINISTRATION. 


This subject is carefully divided and subdivided. The prin- 
cipal divisions are, | 
| ς I. A more precise statement of the point under discussion. 

60. 
II. A statement preliminary to the account of his adminis- 
tration. § 61-72. 

IIL. A statement proving that Philip, not Athens, broke the 
peace, and, therefore, that in his administration Demosthenes had 
resisted aggressions, not originated hostile measures. § 73-78. 

IV. Transition to the account of his foreign administration. 
§ 79, and, 

V. That Account. § 80-101. 


§ 60. A MORE PECISE STATEMENT OF THE POINT UNDER 
DISCUSSION. 


πρὸ τοῦ πολιτεύεσθαι καὶ δημηγορεῖν. If we 
consider Demosthenes’ public career as commencing with his 
first speech before the Assembly—which was the speech περὶ 
συμμοριῶν, delivered in 354, Β. C.—and if we take the orator’s 
words strictly, then we shall see that the only Grecian transac- 
tions which would be omitted by this limitation, are the contests 
about Amphipolis, Pydna, and Potidea. It is probable, how- 


151 


eyer, that with respect to the point of time he uses the words 
somewhat indefinitely. As a matter of fact, the transactions 
which he treats of under this head, occurred after the peace of 
346, B.C., and were those in which he took the lead. And — 
that he does make a distinction between what he did as an op- 
position speaker, if we may use this modern phrase, in the As- 
sembly, and his measures when he was at the head of affairs, 
seems indicated in the latter clause of the sentence. ἃ δ᾽ ἀφ᾽ 
ἧς ἡμέρας ἐπὶ ταῦτα ἐπέστην. ᾿Ἐπιστῆναν means, 
__ to preside over ; hence, of ἐφεστηκότες, generals. Olyn. II. ὃ 28. 

Se;-zavs ἐπὶ τῆς πολιτείας ἐφεστηκότας + ovtor γὰρ ἡγοῦνται, where 
the orator compares the statesman with the general, as both 
being leaders, ἡγεμόνες. περὶ παραπρεσδείας, ὃ 436. Also, §112. 
See, also, ἐπιστὰς ἐγώ, in § 233, where Demosthenes speaks of 
himself, as presiding over and giving direction to public affairs, 
Thus, here, from the day on which J took the lead in these mat- 
ters of state. “Sic restant ea, in quibus Demosthenis primariz 
partes fuerunt, que Demosthenis opera impedita sunt, ee 
hoc est quod dicit: ἃ δ᾽ dw’ ἧς. κι 1.4.” Dissuen, διβδκωλύθη, 
that is, ὁ Φίλιππος. The verb governs ἅ; Kiuner, § 280, 4. 
in what he was baffled. ὑπευπών, premising. “ Prefatus.” 
ScHAEFER,. 


The carefully selected word, διεκωλύθη, suggests a character- 
istic excellence of the oration. Every thing is in keeping. Not 
merely is there nothing in one part which is inconsistent with 
another, but there exists a perfect congruity throughout the 
whole. ‘In the last division of the oration, Demosthenes has to 
meet the fact, that his country was defeated under his adminis- 
tration of affairs. In doing this, he takes the ground that his 
measures were defensive ones, and, therefore, were to be looked 
at from that point of view, since it makes much difference, 
whether a statesman originates a war and is defeated, or whether 
he is defeated in defending his country in a war brought upon 
it. Hence, the verb, δεεκωλύθη, by which the orator implies that 
what he did, he was compelled to do, in resisting the aggres- 
sions of Philip; and this, although he might easily have used a 
stronger word. To the same purport, see ἐγαγντιοῦσθαν in ὃ 69; 
also, ὃ 160, and § 73-79. 


152 


§ 61-72. Τοσοῦτον ὑπειπών, STATEMENT PRELIMINARY 
TO THE ACCOUNT OF HIS FOREIGN ADMINISTRATION. 


This statement is divided into two parts. 
1. The state of Greece. § 61. 
2. What was to be done in view of that state. ὃ 62-72. 


§ 61. Tue state or GREECE, 


πλεονέκτημα, advantage, in opposition to ἐλάττωμα, dis- 
advantage. See ἐλαττοῦμαν in 88. φοράν, acrop. This is 
a common figure, Aischines uses the same: φορὰ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς 
διέθηκε. The apodosis begins with καί; whom he both ren- 
“dered still worse—and divided. τοὺς μὲν ἐξαπατῶν. 
Τοὺς μὲν refers not to individual traitors but to the states. 
“ Neque enim de proditoribus hic cogitandum, sed de Greciz 
civitatibus, quas Philippus in deteriore etiam statu constituit, 
cum, velificantibus ei proditoribus, alias deciperet, aliis emolu- 
menta largiretur, alias omni modo corrumperet.” ScHAEFER. 
Reference is made, first, to the Athenians, who were deceived 
_ by the promises of Philip in the negotiation and ratification of 
the treaty of peace, in 346, B.C.; next, to the Thebans, who 
were loaded with favors for their coéperation in the destruction 
of Phocis; and, finally, to the Thessalians and other Greeks, 
who in various ways were corrupted by him. This sentence 
is composed of two periods, separated at γεγονυῖαν. The first 
expresses the mere fact, that there was at that time in Greece, a 
large number of traitors, but observe how this fact is magnified, 
—the universality of the corruption, by the antithesis, οὐ τεσὶν, 
ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως, asin οὐκέτι κοινῆ, κι τ. λ. in ὃ 33; the base- 
ness of the traitors, by the accumulation of epithets and the 
contemptuous use of φοράν ; and their multitude, by the employ- 
ment, not of a single term, as μεγίστην, which would have been 
natural, but of a proposition, ὅσην οὐδείς mw πρότερον μέμνηταυ 
γεγονυῖαν, ‘This period, which describes the traitors, properly 
precedes that which represents Philip as using them in his ser- 
vice. With regard to the second period, notice how prominently 
each important thought stands forth—the tractors, working and 
struggling for Philip, the Grecian states, hostile to each other 


ῥητόρων πονηρῶν ἅμα καὶ τολμηρῶν. § 234, κατὰ Κτησὶφ.. xal— 


ὡ α. Φλαιι ,ψ...». 


158 


and rent in factions,—and, here, notice the two principal words, 
κακῶς and στασιαστικῶς; thrown apart for the sake of greater 
emphasis—and then Philip using these instruments and taking 
advantage of these circumstances. In this last clause, observe, 
that the verb, διέθηκδ, is followed by a suite of participles, ex- 
presssing the means which Philip used, and the clause, διέστη- 
vey εὶς μέρη πολλά, by a participial clause, expressing the strong 
interest that these states had in resisting Philip—thus giving a 
balance to the period. 


The dissensions in the Greek states, and the treachery of the 
Macedonian factions in them are most important points in his 
defense, and Demosthenes often dwells upon them, and always 
with great power. The present description of Greece, rent into 
factions and filled with traitors, is a repetition of a statement 
already twice made. In § 18-20, we have a carefully-wrought 
account of those dissensions which led to the First Peace, and 
in § 42—49, another still more effective exposition of that dis- 
ease which had infected the whole Grecian world, followed by 
that terrible scourging of the traitors, which Lord Brougham 
has called “one of Demosthenes’ finest bursts.” 


§ 62-72. WHat WAS TO BE DONE IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF 
GREECE. 


καὶ tte ἀγνοίᾳ. Thestate of Greece just described per- 
tains especially to the-period of the First Peace, when the Greeks 
were little aware of the ambitious designs of Philip. Hence 
the force of ἔτι, all the Greeks being as yet ignorant of the ex- 
isting and growing evil ;—implying, however, that they after- 
wards saw through his policy, which, indeed, was effected prin- 
cipally through the efforts of Demosthenes. πράττειν καὶ 
movetyv, Pleonasmus est oratorius: ne putes discrimen sig- 
nificationis inter hee verba intercedere. Scuarrer. Lord 
Brougham has omitted one of them in translating; “ to choose 
and pursue.” ἐνταῦθα τῆς πολιτείας, “in ea reipub- 
lice parte.” Wor. Δολόπων. At this period, the district 
§ 63 of the. Dolopians was a mere appendage of Thessaly, 
‘and they usually followed in the train of the Thessali- 


154 


aus. WESTERMANN, τὰ τῶν προγόνων καλὰ καὶ di- 
xavo, with reference to the hegemony or dominion of the 
Athenians. ὡς ἀληθῶς. Although ὡς with certain adverbs, 
as ἀληθῶς, ἑτερῶς, and the like, strengthens the positive, as well - 
as the superlative, yet it rarely bears translating. TZruly, other- 
wise, is enough. τοῦτο μὲν --- ἃ δὲ introduce, in contrast, 
the two parties who favored Philip, those who codperated with 
him, and those who simply stood aloof, and let him do his 
pleasure. 290 ησθάνεθ᾽, a stronger word than ἑώρα, em- 
phatically setting forth the baseness of those, who, though they 
had for a long time foreseen the danger, made no preparation 
against it, but suffered it to come. ὡς ἔοικεν, expresses_not 
doubt, but certainty; doubtless. See note to § 8. “ Opinor, 
hoe est, profecto: Neque enim dubitat, sed contendit.” Disszn. 
περιιδεῖν γιγνόμενα. Περιιδεῖν, is to overlook, to take 
no notice of ; with a participle in the accusative, it has a pecu- 
liar meaning, which may be stated in general, thus; to see that 
take place which is expressed by the participle, without doing 
any thing to hinder it, although such hindrance might have 
been expected: hence, to let a thing be done, to connive at a 
thing being done. Kiiuner, 310, 4.6. It is difficult to give the 
true force of this sentence in English: or, not to do this, for 
horrible in truth would such conduct be, but, what it saw would 
happen if none should hinder,—and had discerned doubtless a 
_ long time—to see that take place and do nothing. Lord Brough- 
am translates—“or if she took not that, (which assuredly wt 
would have been monstrous to take,) was she to overlook those 
things when they actually came to pass, which she had deseried — 
when they were about to happen if no one interposed, ay, and 
had foreseen to all appearance for a long time”—and adds, “ our 
language from its want of flexion and declension, and concord, 
is extremely deficient in powers of collocation. In the present 
instance, the collocation should be the reverse of what we are 
compelled, without repetition and interpolation, to adopt.” It 
is implied in the sentence and would have been indicated by 
the tone of utterance, that that which was foreseen was some 
calamity, and it is this which it is difficult to bring out in the 
-translation. ᾿4λλὰ viv %ywye. This sentence, it will be 
i ainda repeats the former, ovvavtiag corresponding to συγ- 

* gataxtao0ar, and περιεωρακυίας, to περιιδεῖν, with which 


155 


it coincides in meaning. It, however, differs; the latter clause 
designates and explains what was merely implied in the corres- 
ponding member of the preceding sentence. καὶ γὰρ δὶ 
8 65 μέν. There is a diversity in the text of this sen- 

᾿ς tence. With the present reading, it may be translated 
as follows. or while, if Philip after his success—that is, in 
ending the Phocian war—had withdrawn and kept quiet, harm- 
ing no one of his allies or of the other Greeks in any thing, there 
might have been some complaint and accusation against those 
who opposed his enterprizes,—an admission which is thought to 
be very little in the spirit of Demosthenes—yet, since he has 
stripped all alike of their dignity, their supremacy, their free- 
dom, nay, even of the free governments of as many as he could, 
how have not. you taken the most honorable counsels of all, in 
following me? The argument is in the latter clause, and is this; 
that the other Greeks had gained nothing by their subserviency, 
for all suffered alike, while, at the same time, they had sacrificed 
their honor. But, Wolf, Reiske, and Dissen insert ὅμως before 
qv, and οὐκ before ἐναντιωθέντων, as affording a sense much 
more in accordance with the character of Demosthenes. With 
this reading the argument is as follows: If Philip did no harm 
to any, after his success, they are no better off than we, and be- 
sides are liable to the charge of subserviency or cowardice in 
not resisting him; but if he did_harm, yet to all alike, we are 
no worse off than they, and besides have maintained our honor, 
so that in either case the other Greeks are in a worse situation 
than the Athenians. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖσε, to the point, to the main 
8 66 topic of discourse, interrupted by the preceding section. 

‘4 τί τὸν σύὐμδουλον. The Reviewer of Lord 
Brougham, has well pointed out the climax here ; “or what did 
it become the statesman to say or propose—the statesman at Ath- 
ens—me?” καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο, “τὸ 4θήνησι σύμθουλον sivas.” 
SoHAEFER, ἀφ᾽ ἧς, marks the time from which he began 
to address the Assembly. τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἐκκδκομμὲέ- 
vov, having his eye cut out, an idiomatic expression answering 
in many cases to the Greek accusative following the passive. 
Kiuner, ὃ 279, 7. Burrmawy, §134, 7. Philip lost his eye, at 
the seige of Methone. τὴ» κλεῖν κατεαγότα, This hap- 
pened, according to the Scholiast, in an expedition against the 
Illyrians ; the other wounds, on his return from the Scythian 


156 


expedition, when he was attacked by the Triballians. τῷ λου- 
§ 68 azo, “reliquo corpore.”” Dissen. καὶ τοῦτ᾽, “τὸ ἄρ- 

' yew “Ελλήνων. Reiske. ἐν πᾶσι καὶ λόγοις καὶ 
θεωρήμασι, “in speeches and spectacles.” Lorp BRougHAM; 
“in speeches and in dramas.” Kunnepy. It seems better, how- 
ever, to take them in a general sense; in every thing you hear 
and see. Thus, Scuanrer. ὁρῶ σι, applicable only to θεωρή- 
μασι, but embracing λόγοις s perceiving. ὑπάρξαν, not “to 
be bred,” as Lord Brovenam; nor, “ to be naturally,” as Ken- 
ΝΈΡΥ ; but, to happen, to come upon, that is, from without, in 
distinction from springing up within, and thus beautifully con- 
trasted with ἐγγενέσθαν, It would have been little like Demos- 
thenes to speak of his countrymen as being naturally mean- 
spirited. αὐτεπαγγέλτους ἐθελοντάς, of their own 
accord, voluntarily, “Sit pleonasmus; non obloquor. Sed nec _ 
caret gravitate hee verborum abundantia in re turpi describ- 
enda, et Orator pleonasticis locutionibus ita abutitur, ut qui ejus 
rationem satis callet ad talia non facile offendat.” ScuaErer. 
Champlin has carried the pleonasm somewhat too far; “a vol- 
untary willingness originating with themselves, without being 
compelled to it.” λοιπὸν τοίνυν ἦν καὶ ἀναγκαῖον, 
8 69 LEFT then was it and at the same time necessary. No- 

"tice the emphatic position of the adjectives, and see note - 
ἰο 89. ἀδικῶν», has its opposite in δεκαίως ; justly to oppose 
all that he unjustly did against you. ᾿μφίπολιν, Hid- 
vav, Ποτίδαιαν. See Hist. Sketch, pp. 88-40. “44- 
όννησον. The Athenians had negotiations with Philip 
about this island in the spring of 348, B.C., though Philip 
might have taken possession of it much earlier. As the cap- 
ture of the other places was so much earlier, in 357-356, B.C., 
the reason why this is mentioned is not apparent. See Hist. 
Sketch, pp. 71,73. Σ ἐῤῥειον δὲ καὶ doglaxoy, pla- 
ces in Thrace taken by Philip before his ratification of the treaty 
of 346, B.C. See ὃ 27, and Hist. Sketch, p. 62. τὴν Πε- 
παρήθου πόρθησιν, The devastation of this island was 
8. 70 much later, as late probably as 341, B.C. καίτου 

᾿ σύ γ᾽ ἔφησθα, although you declared that I by say- 
ing these things—that is, dwelling on the injuries inflicted by 
Philip—eacited these—the Athenians—io enmity, that is, with 
Philip ; not, as Lord Brougham, “ and yet you, dischines, charge 


157 


me with having raised those enemies against the country.” Tt is 
noticeable that Demosthenes mingles with the remote events in 
which he took no leading part, those of Halonnesus and Pepare- 
thus, though these occurred within the period during which his 
part in public affairs was more prominent ; however, he might 
not have been the leading counsellor as to these particular trans- 
actions. It is also noticeable, and almost inexplicable, except 
on the supposition of intentional deception, which, as Wester- 
mann says, must have been at once detected, that, here and in 
§ 75, he ascribes decrees to men, such as Eubulus and Philo- 
crates, of which we can hardly believe them to have been the 
authors. οὐδὲ νῦν περὶ τούτων ἐρῶ, nor even now 
will I speak of them, since, as he just said, he had heretofore 
taken no active part concerning them; he had proposed no 
decrees. “ Quare etiam nune non dicam de his, quaemadmodum 
antea nullas rogationes de iis tuli.” Dissen. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τὴν 
g Εὔδοιαν. For the facts in this sentence, see Hist. 

Sketch, pp. 71, 72,738. &aerelyvoua, a stronghold, 
from whence to make attacks upon Attica, a point d’apput. 
wohevg “Ελληνίδας. “Quas urbes intellexerit orator ig- 
noramus.” Dissen. ἃς μέν---ἃἂς δέ. Some—others. “The 
postpositive articles, ὃς μέν and ὃς δέ, like the prepositive, 6 μέν 
and ὁ δὲ, often retain their original demonstrative force, espe- 
cially in the distinction and distribution of objects.” Burrmann, 
§ 126, 1, 2, 3, with reference to this place. ἠδέκδι. The 
imperfect tense is properly used of a series of events, and may 
be exactly given in English ;—was he doing wrong and violating 
ihe treaty and breaking the peace or not? παρδσπόνδευ, 
“ breaking the truce?” Kennepy. But what truce? It differs 
little in meaning’ from ἔλυδ τὴν δἰρήνην, Compare παρασπονδῶν 
καὶ λύων τὴν εἰρήνην, Περὶ ‘Alovyijoov, p. 85, § 36. ἐχρῆν 
ἢ μή, “Repete φανῆναν." ScHaEFER. μὴ ἐ χρῆν», “Subaudi 
gavivear. Docet oppositio, v. 6.” ScHAEFER. τὴν Μυσῶν 
g λείαν καλουμένην, the so-called Mysian prey. 

The Mysians were a timid, unwarlike people of Asia 
Minor. Hence the proverb,—t}v Μυσῶν helay—applied to any 
one submitting tamely to injury and insult. Cicero refers to it; 
“Quid porro in Greeeo sermone tam tritum atque celebratum 
est, quam, si quis despicatui ducitur, ut Mysorum ultimus dica- 
tur?” Pro Flaceo. ὃ 27, Ζώντων καὶ ὄντων. There is 

14 


158 
no difference. “While the Athenians had life and being.” Lord 


Broveuam. Compare Τιμοδήμῳ τῷ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ὄντι καὶ ζῶντι. ὑπὲρ 
Φορμίωνος. Ὁ. 968, 17, quoted by W. Dinporr. ἐπολυτευό- 
“nv. It is obvious that Demosthenes is here describing the 
part of a leading statesman in Athens, yet he uses a word which 
might signify much less, See note to 860. ἠναντιούμην, 
see note to 8 60. ταῦτα. “Scilicet τὰ ἡμέτερα κτήματα καὶ 
δίκαια καὶ καυχήματα, hoc nostra bona, copias, possessiones, jura, 
decora. Ut Demosthenes vocabulo ταῦτα cunctas opes, totam 
rempublicam, universum imperium Atheniensium, ita Tullius 
quoque vocabulo hee rem omnem Romanam complectitur.” 
REIsKE. 


The preceding passage, commencing with § 66, Lord Brough- 
am considers among the finest in all Demosthenes. He says, 
“the heavy fire of indignant invective is kept up throughout, 
only limited by the desire to avoid any too personal offense to 
an audience as vain as supine, and as impatient of censures as 
it was deserving of them. The rapidity of the declamation is 
striking in the highest degree; the number of topics crowded 
into a few words, in § 71, especially, and the absolute perfection 
of the choice, is not to be surpassed. We are left at a loss to 
determine whether the substance or the diction should be pre- 
ferred. Nothing, too, can be more natural than the introduc- 
tion of this burst, nothing more closely bearing upon the argu- 
ment. In modern eloquence passages of this very kind are 
never failing in success. The picture of Philip is truly fine; 
and it is both striking and figurative, especially the ὥστε τῷ 
λοιπῷ ζῆν. The appeal to the Athenians, and the contrast drawn 
between them and the natives of a mean town, in respect of 
magnanimity, can not be too much admired. In our Parlia- 
ment, sections 70, 71 and 72, could not have been easily deliv- 
ered for the bursts of cheering they would have occasioned. 1 
find Lord Wellesley prefers this to almost all the other passages 
of Demosthenes.—It is such things as this that haunt the stu- 
dent of eloquence, and will not quit his mind by day or by 
night, in the solitary walk, or in the senate and the forum, fill- 
ing him at once with envy and admiration, with an irrepressible 
desire to follow in such footsteps, and with absolute despair at 
the distance of his own.” 


159 


The section of the oration just examined is a fine example 
Appeal to the Of that appeal to the feelings and to the principles 
feelings. of human action, which prepares the way for a 
favorable judgment of facts which: are in accordance with 
them. The orator is about to speak of the acts of his own 
administration. But he would first establish in the feelings of 
his hearers the principles on which he should have acted, and 
on which he claims to have acted. This he does by an appeal 
to their feelings of honor, of pride, of patriotism. Thus he pre- 
pares their minds to listen with favor to the recital of his publie 
acts. They indeed decide before they hear. For another even 
still finer example of an Appeal to the Feelings preparatory to* 
a statement of facts, in order to influence the judgment in its 
decision upon those facts, see ὃ 188-210. 

Demosthenes first describes the state of Greece. In view of 
it, as leading statesman in Athens, he had counselled his coun- 
try to resist the ambitious designs of Philip. He contends that 
no other honorable course was left her; she could not do other- 
wise than interpose for the defense of Greece. This is the single 
topic he dwells upon in this appeal; he presents it under three 
distinct aspects, thus furnishing another characteristic example 
of his mode of treating facts and topics. 

1. Looking at the state of Greece, part codperating with 
Philip, and the rest indifferent to what he was doing, he asks 
what did it become the state to do? what did its honor require ? 
And this topic as we saw, was repeated. 

2. Looking at the parties, Athens and Philip, did it become 
Athens to yield to Philip the freedom of the Greeks? or to re- 
sist him ὃ | 

3. Looking, not at the situation of the several states of Greece, 
not to the character of Athens and Philip, and the spirit which 
animated them, but to the facts in the case, to what Philip had 
done, ought any state to have resisted him, and if so, what state 
but Athens ? 

We have, heretofore, had an instance, in § 34, 37, 39, in 
which Demosthenes, in presenting the same topic in different 
Separation of points of view, kept each point separate, by the inter- 
the topics. —_ position of matter of a different kirid. So, here, be- 
tween the first and second points, he interposes the topic of the 
expediency of the course he counselled. Demosthenes makes 


100 


his most. powerful appeal to the feelings of honor, pride, and 
patriotism, but at the same time he forgets not to point to the 
fact, though as it were in an undertone, that the course of honor 
-was also the course of interest. See § 46, 89, 195, where he 
carefully brings out this consideration. Again, between the 
second and third points, he draws the inference as to what was 
necessary to be done and affirms the state had done that, though 
it was he who proposed the decrees and managed the business. 
We may, also, remark that in this appeal, which must have 
Conciliation of been highly grateful to his audience, the orator in- 
the Audience. directly interests them in himself; they can not but 
-feel that he was animated with the loftiest sentiments of patri- 
otism. 


§ 73-78. Proor raat ΡΗΊΓΙΡ, Not ATHENS, BROKE THE PEACE} 
OTHER STATESMEN, NOT DEMOSTHENES PROPOSED WAR. 


. καὶ μὴν τὴν εἰρήνην γ᾽. The connection is this; De- 
mosthenes had mentioned a variety of acts whieh were incon- 
sistent with the spirit of the treaty. He now is about to speak 
of one, which was a direct violation of it, and which had been 
so regarded by the people of Athens. Hence, And in truth the 
peace at any rate he broke by taking the ships. αὐτὰ τὰ ψη- 
φίσμστα, the decrees themselves, as the highest evidence. 
tig τίνος αἴτιος, whois guilty and of what. “The Greek 
language may place two or even more interrogatives without 
καί under a common predicate.” Kijuner, ὃ 344, 7. 


In coincidence with his plan of representing himself as always 
acting on the defensive, of merely resisting the aggressions of 
Philip, Demosthenes here, before speaking of the acts of his 
own administration, prepares the way for such a representation 
by proving that Philip was the aggressor in breaking the peace. 
We must not omit to notice, also, how careful the orator is to 
state that the decrees which immediately preceded the war 
were proposed in part by Eubulus and others of his party. As 
these decrees, as well as the war itself, were highly honorable 
to the Athenians, it might appear, at first sight, strange that 
Demosthenes should thus exclude himself from having anything 
to do with that matter. But it was not unimportant for him _ 


161 


to conciliate the friends of Eubulus, and to show that the states- 
men of all parties agreed at that. juncture, in their hostility to 
Philip. 


§ 79-101. Accounr oF nis Foreign, ADMINISTRATION, 


I. Transition. 

Il. A general statement, with the results. ὃ. 80, 

Ill. A particular reference to affairs.in. Eubcea, with various 
applications. ὃ 81-86. 
εξ IV. A particular reference to. affairs concerning Byzantium. 

87-94. | . 

V. The justification of his measures, by examples drawn 
from Athenian history. ὃ 95-100. 

VI. Conclusion. § 101. 


§ 79. TRANSITION, 


The reason alleged why Philip made no mention of Demos- 
thenes furnishes so felicitous a transition, that we almost suspect 
the letter was read for this purpose. ἐγδγράφεν. The com- 
mon text is, γέγραφε, which is clearly wrong. Bekker proposes 
ἔγραφε; Voemel ingeniously γ᾽ ἔγραφε, but Schaefer the reading 

‘in the text. 


§ 80. A GENERAL STATEMENT, WITH RESULTS. 


ἔγραψα. For the facts, see Hist. Sketch. pp. 69,72, 74-76. 
wagedteto, was stealing into, with reference to the insidi- 
ous nature of Philip’s procedures. ἀποστόλους, naval ex- 
peditions; “ expeditiones maritimas.” Hart. ἀπέστειλα, "οὶ 
only as proposing the decrees, but as the author of the trierarchy 
law, in accordance with which the expeditions were sent. See 
8107. καθ᾽ οὕ ς---δὶ ὧν, Uxpran, “per quas,” Wor. “ Kard, 
etiam pro διά, propter; significationem observavi frequentius 
apud veteres scriptores quam apud ceteros, apud Thucydidem 
vero potissimum.” Srepuzn’s Thesaurus. Compare ὥστε οὐ 
κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν κακίαν τὸ ἡσσῆσθαν, “it was not through our 
cowardice that we experienced the defeat.” Thucyd, ττ. 81. Κατὰ 
φιλίαν αὐτοῦ of πλεῖστοι ἐκ Κορίνθου στρατιῶται ἐθελονταὶ ξυνέσ- 
πόντο, it was through their friendship for him (Aristeus), that 
most of the Corinthians joined the expedition as volunteers. 1. 60. 

14* , 


162 


Κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ ἔπεα συνξχέοντο αἱ γνῶμαι, x. t.). by these words 
their opinions were perplexed. Herod. 7,142. See Xen. Mem. 1, 
3,12. This use of κατά is somewhat rare, but may be viewed, 
perhaps, as expressing the accordance between the instrument 
and the result, the eause and effect, like the adverb, accordingly, 
in certain cases. πάντες of σύμμαχον, such as, Procon- 
nesus, Tenedos, Abydos. See ὃ 302. § 80. Rusutts. “EE ὧν 
ὑμῖν μέν, from which to you—vuivy uér—there came the 
most honorable things, eulogies, &c., from those benefitted —that 
is, by you—; while with respect to those injured—tay 0é—that 
is, by Philip,—there resulted, to such as confided in you,—tois 
bév—the safety of their affairs—*, σωτηρία corresponding to τά ἡ 
κάλλεστα, and hence the article, the honor to you, the safety to 
them—but to those who were neglectful,—tois 0’—the frequent 
calling to mind, δὼ. Τοῖς μὲν ὑμῖν τότε πεισθεῖσυν refers to the 
same class as παρὰ τῶν sv πεπονθότων. Let the student notice 
with what facility the several classes are kept distinct, and yet, 
how firmly the whole is bound together, by the particles. . 
φρονίμους ἀνθρώπους καὶ μάντεις. Observe how 
ἀνθρώπους as the less important is thrown in between the two 
predicates, as in Shakspeare’s “good men and true.” 


§ 81-86. Arrams 1n Evpama. 


Aischines gives a different account of the transactions in Eu- 
boeea, though his own statements bear marks of misrepresenta- 
tion. The only important thing is the assertion that Demos- 
thenes sold the interests and opportunities of the state for money. 
§ 103-105. This latter charge Demosthenes here answers ; 
first, by a denial, and, secondly, by the fact that he was crown- 
ed, without opposition, for his measures respecting Eubeea. 


§ 81-82. DENIAL OF THE CHARGE OF CORRUPTION. 


Kat μήν, here and elsewhere, introduce a new topic, 
closely connected with what precedes and easily suggested by it, 
but the connection not pointed out by a sentence of transition. 
See §73, $120. πολλὰ μὲν ἂν χρήματα. “The 
repetition of this phrase, πολλὰ χρήματα," says Kord Brougham, 
“and its simplicity is striking. In. our orations, the figure 
would be quite admissible, and is often used with effect.” Lord 


163 


Brougham’s own speeches abound in sentences of this kind, in 
which some emphatic word is repeated again and again. Speak- 
ing of the Holy Alliance, he says, “No, it is against freedom / 
—against freedom wherever found—freedom by whomsoever 
enjoyed—freedom by whatever means achieved, by whatever 
institutions secured.” τὰ ὕθ᾽, that is, Oreus, and Eretria. 
δεῦρ᾽ ἀφικνούμενον, coming here, that is, as often as 
they came. “ Puta, repetitis vicibus.” Dissmn. προὺξένδες. 
As Aischines was not the proper Proxenus of Eubcea, the verb 
must be taken in a somewhat different sense ; “ patronus eorum 
eras.” Dissen. οὐ τοίνυν ἐπράχθη τούτων οὐδέν, 
now then none of these things were done ; that is, neither Philis- 
tides nor Cleitarchus nor Philip succeeded in accomplishing 
their designs, since the Athenian interests in Eubcea were up- 
held with unshaken fidelity, ὡς σιωπῶ μὲν λαδών. 
The orator refers to the following passage, in which Aischines 
excuses that withdrawment from public affairs, which he has 
learned; he says, Demosthenes will charge upon him, though 
the actual charge is that he withdrew only in times of alarm 
and danger: “τὴν δ᾽ ἐμὴν σιωπὴν, ὦ “]ημόσϑενες, ἡ tod βίου 
μετριότης παρεσκδύασεν - ἀρκεῖ γάρ μοι μικρὰ καὶ μειζόνων αἱσ- 
χθρῶς οὐκ ἐπυϑυμῷ, ὥστε καὶ σιγῶ καὶ λέγω βουλευσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ 
οὐκ ἀναγκαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν τῆ φύσεν δαπάνης. σὺ δ᾽, οἶμαι, 
λαβὼν μὲν σεσίγηκας, ἀναλώσας δὲ κέκραγας. λέγεις δὲ οὐχ ὁπόταν 
σον δοκῇ οὐδ᾽ ἃ βούλει, ἀλλ᾽ ὁπόταν οἱ μισϑοδόταν Gor προστάττω-- 
ow.” 8218. ἀτιμώσαντες,, a technical word, denoting 
the loss of the right to institute suits, on account of failing to 
obtain one-fifth of the votes in a public prosecution; by dis- 
Jranchising you to-day. ὃ 83: Tue racr ruat DremostHENEs 
WAS CROWNED... καὶ δευτέρου κηρύγματος ἤδη Moe 
τούτου γιγνομένου, In this speech, and in the περὶ 
παραπρεσβείας, mention is made of four psephisms, as they are 
enumerated by W. Dindorf, to crown Demosthenes; the first, 
proposed by himself, to crown the whole embassy which was 
sent in 347, B.C., to obtain terms of peace from Philip, and of 
which he was a member, περὶ παραπ. §414; the second, the 
present one of Aristonicus ; the third, proposed by Demomeles 
and Hyperides, on account of the first successes in the last 
war, $223; and the fourth, the psephism of Ctesiphon. The 
proclamations of these crowns were, the first in 347, B. C.; 
the second, in 341, B.C,; the third in 339, B.C.; and the 


164 


fourth in 330, B.C., the last three at the greater Dionysia. 
If now we take the words, κηρύγματος ἤδη wor τούτου, as ΤῸ" 
ferring to the proclamation of the crown proposed by Aris- 
tonicus, as Dindorf does, it will accord with what the orator 
elsewhere says in these orations. Dissen, also, refers them to 
the same proclamation, but disregarding the crown conferred on 
the embassy, supposes that Demosthenes had received. another 
erown which for some reason he did not mention, perhaps be- 
cause it related to matters of a different kind. But Reiske, 
Schaefer, and Westermann refer the words to the proclamation 
ordered by the decree of Ctesiphon, though without attempting 
to harmonize the order of the several psephisms with such a 
reference. τὸν εἰπόντα-ετὸν γράψαντα, the one who 
proposed the decree. § 85. A FARTHER APPLICATION OF THE 
FACT OF HIS HAVING BEEN CROWNED. ἐάν te—édcy θ᾽, in 
case that—in case that. ὡς é&tégws, otherwise. See $63, 
and add; “ ὡς premittitur etiam quibusdam adverbiis positivi 
gradus, quorum tamen ad significationem nihil addit. Adverbia 
ila usitatiora sunt ἀληθῶς, ἑτέρως." Vieur, Chap. VILL. § 10, rx. 
See, also, ἃ 128, 306. §86. ConcLUsION DRAWN FROM THE 


STATEMENT OF HIS ADMINISTRATION THUS FAR MADE. μέχρι 


μὲν τῶν χρόνων ἐκείνων, up to these times and em- 
bracing them. It will be observed that μέν has no correspond- 
ing particle, though the contrast is obvious. πάντας χρό- 
vous, throughout the whole period. λέγων καὶ φράφων, 
We have already seen that actions coincident with the action of 
the verb are expressed by participles. These participles stand 
in different xelations to the verb; in that of mere coéxistence, 
of cause and effect, of opposition, and the like. In English this 
relation ts often elegantly indicated by the preposition. Thus, 
here ;—that I prevailed in speaking and propeunding.  Aris- 


tophanes in describing the scholar of the sophists mentions — 


among other things his ambition to figure in the Assembly, and 
uses similar words. 
Καὶ βέλτιστον τοῦτο voulters— 

“νικᾷν πράττων καὶ βουλεύων καὶ τῇ γλώττη πολεμίζων. Nub. 
418--19. 
TH πόλεν καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν. For an- 
other instance in which the orator identifies himself in feeling 
and interest individually with the audience, 8866 81. ὡς ἀγα- 
Gay, not, “as of good,” but, as good.—It will be observed that 


165. 


this sentence, in giving the proof that the success of his Ad- 
ministration was acknowledged at the time, repeats in condensed 
form the preceding sections. : 


We have in this section, ὃ 80-86, another exemplification of 
Applicationsof the manner in which the orator pursues a fact or 
Facts or Argu- argument into its various applications. A single 
wecte paragraph contains the statement of the facts; this 
is followed by a condensed account of their results; this, by a 
refutation of the charge of corruption in the affairs of Eubcea, 
which refutation itself shows, on the one hand, the importance 
of his measures, not merely in the estimation of the Athenians, 
not merely in the view of those states who had been benefitted 
by them, but, also, in the opinion of their enemies themselves, 
while, on the other, it indirectly conciliates their good will to- 
wards Demosthenes as an incorruptible patriot ; this, by men- 
tion of the crown conferred on him, with an inference from this ; 
and the whole concluded by himself drawing the inference that 
he was acknowledged to have always acted for the best good of 
the state. 

We may, also, notice how skillfully the orator repeats, and 
without the appearance of tautology, the summary 
of the principal events of his administration. First, 
Philip is introduced as making the attack, then Demosthenes 
as repelling it, then both are introduced, Philip as ready to buy 
off opposition to his designs and Demosthenes as spurning the 
bribe,—and all in relation to the same facts. § 71, 80, 81. 


Repetition. 


§ 87-94. A PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO AFFAIRS CONCERNING 
ByzANTIUM, 


For facts, see Hist. Sketch, pp. 75-76. tg’ ὑμῶν, ὑπ’ 
ἐμοῦ, instead of the adjective pronouns, for the sake of 
emphasis; as regards weapons, by you, but as regards policy 
and decrees—should some of these bursi—by me. &tegoyr 
ἐπυιτδυιχισμόν = ἐπιτείχισμα. “᾿Ἐπιτειχισμός hoc loco 
non proprio sensu dicitur; ἕτερον igitur vertam alius generis.” 
ScHAEFER. ἐπιυτδίχισμα means a fortress, not of defense, but of 
attack ; a frontier-fortress, (Grenz-festung, Passow;) or, more 
generally, a fortress so situated as to be both a point from 


, 


100 


whence to make attacks, and, also, a point of support,—a 
basis of operations. Demosthenes uses it in several senses ; 
I. literally, of fortified places. He speaks of the Athenians 
having Pydna, Potidza, and Methone, in Chaleidice, as é- 
τειχίσματα τῆς αὑτοῦ yous, strongholds against Macedona. 
Phil. I. 8 δ᾽; IL. somewhat figuratively, of a whole region. 
Thus, he speaks of Philip preparing Eubcea to be a strong- 
hold against the Athenians—xataoxevétovtos ὑμῖν ἐπιτείχισμα 
τὴν Εὔδοιαν. περὶ τῶν ἐν Χεῤῥ. ὃ 66—; or, against Attica, 
ἐπὶ τὴν ᾿Αττικήν, § 71; and, also, of the island of Rhodes, 
as a stronghold, (in the hands of the king of Persia,) threaten- 
ing Caria. ὑπὲρ τῆς “Ῥοδίων ἐλευθ, § 12; and, IL. metaphor- 
ically, as of tyrants; thus, “ Philip has established two tyrants 
in Eubcea, making the one a fortress,—énutevyloas—over against 
Attica, and the other against Sciathus. περὶ τῶν ev Χεῤῥ. § 36: 
or, still farther removed from the literal meaning, of any instru- 
ment of aggression. Thus, here, after having lost the strong- 
hold of Eubcea, Philip sought to assail the Athenians from 
another sort of fortress—referring to his mastery of the grain 
trade, but softening the harshness of the metaphor by leaving 
the reference to be inferred from the following sentence. For, the 
reference here is not to Byzantium, as Kennedy seems to sup- 
pose, but to Philip’s mastery of the grain-trade. “ Interceptio 
frumenti erat alter ille ἐπιτειχισμός." Reiske and ScHAEFER. 
ὁρῶν δέ. “Sententia postulat γάρ." Retske. ‘“Sententia 
non postulat γάρ. Szepissime enim particula δέ simpliciter cop- 


ulat enuntiationes.” Scuarrer.—Notice that the participles as _ 


holding different relations to the verb, are without connectives. 
See Rem. p.127, σίτῳ πάντων ἀνθρώπων mhel- 
στῳ χρώμεθ᾽ ἐπεισάκτῳ. The whole consumption 
of grain in Attica, according to Boeckh, was three million me- 
dimni, or four and a half millions of bushels a year, of which 
one million medimni, or one and a half million of bushels, 
were imported, principally from Pontus. παρελθὼν ἐπὶ 
Θράκης, passing to Thrace. οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔφα- 
σαν, and said they had not made the alliance on these terms, 
χάρακα, a mound or rampart set with stakes, like the Roman 
vallum ; throwing up an entrenchment close to the city. otxét’ 
g ἐρωτήσω, I will not again ask, having already done 

it in the preliminary inquiry. ὃ 61-72. “ Οὐκέτυ enim 


107 


refertur ad interrogationes, quibus supra orator adversarium 
identidem urserat.” ScHazreR. § 89. THE MATERIAL RESULTS 
OF THE WAR, ἀλλὰ μήν, similar to καὶ μήν. See to § 81. 
ὁ γὰρ τότε ἐνστὰς πόλεμος, for the war then ewist- 
ing; the peace between Philip and Athens having been formally 
annulled, and war declared before this. See Hist. Sketch, p. 75. 
This Byzantine war, the orator is careful to distinguish from 
the last Sacred war, into which it merged, and in which the 
Athenians were conquered. &vev, “preter quam quod, vel, 
preter.” Viger, Ch. IX. § 1-8, besides. διῆγεν ὑμᾶς. 
Aviyevy ἔν, is to live or be in a given state, and hence, causatively, 
to cause to live or be in that state. But our idiom requires the 
abstract instead of the concrete; hence, put you in a condition 
in which all the necessaries of life were more abundant and 
cheaper than the present peace. “ Fecit, (bellum,) ut viveretis in 
muyjore affluentia, &.” Dissen. τῆς viv δὶρήνης, the 
peace made after the battle of Cheronea, the continuance of 
which depended upon the goodwill of Alexander, μδτάσ χ- 
oveyv, In almost every other edition, the reading is, μὴ μὲ- 
τάσχοιεν μηδὲ μεταδοῖεν. “Μή omittit et μή pro μηδέ prebet 
Codex S. quam sequi debebam. Majore enim cum vi orator 
apprecatur quamvis contra-machinantibus.” W.Drnporr. This 
reading accords better perhaps with the concluding prayer of 
the oration, in which the orator implores the gods to inspire 
even these traitors with better feelings. ὧν αὐτοὶ προή - 
ρηνταυ, “nor communicate their own principles to you.” Krn- 
wepy. Rather, their own servility, as the Scholiast interprets it, 
τῆς δουλείας, δηλονότι, ὃ 98, 94. Honorary RESULTS, 0006 
Ξ-- οὐδὲ μόνον. See to 8 3. ἡ προαίρεσις ἡ ἐμὴ καὶ ἡ 
πολυτεία, more emphatic than ἡ ἐμὴ πολιτεία καὶ προαίρεσις, 
which occurs ἴῃ 5. 292, 317; both, in another passage, are rep- 
resented by ἡ προαίρεσις τῆς mohutelas, §192. Thus, in English, 
“my policy and my administration,” or, “the policy of my ad- 
ministration.” ὁ μὲν ye. Some read γάρ, but ye is the proper 
reading. “Harum particularum, μέν ye, is usus est ut ye ad 
precedentia confirmationis causa referatur, μέν autem ad illud 
ipsum, de quo sermo est, spectet.” Hur, ap Via. p. 824. Hz, 
endeed,—but you. ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν yodr ous, that 
is, in the Social war. Hist. Sketch, p.41. τοὺς ἀδεκουμέ- 
vous, not repelling those who suffer wrong, although they had 


168 


themselves even wronged you, as the Byzantines had done, 
σύμδουλον λέγω καὶ ῥήτορα, thrown in to give 
prominence to the fact, that though commanders had often 
gained that honor for the state, he was the first man who had 
done it, that was merely a statesman and speaker ;—a fact, 
significant of a great change in the administration of the Athe- 
nian government, since, heretofore, the characters of the states- 
man and the warrior had been united in the same man. 


We again call attention ‘to the summary exposition of the 
facts, as contrasted with the various particular applications and 
uses of them. But, if we view the account of his entire ad- 


ministration, we shall be still more impressed with this charac- Ὁ 


teristic of the orator. First, we have several pages of prelim- 
inary matter, then a single paragraph containing the general 
account of what he did—§ 80,—and here two paragraphs con- 
taining the statement of two particular transactions, The 
whole account, regarded as an historical narrative, embraces 
only these few paragraphs out of fifty-one. See Rem. to § 25-30. 
It may, also, be noticed that the orator, in accordance with 
his purpose of always representing Athens in her resistance to 
Philip as better off than those states which yielded to him, is 
careful to say that even in the midst of the war provisions were 
more abundant and cheaper than under the present peace, be- 
sides the glory which was gained by the war. Rem. to § 65. 


ἢ 95-100. ΤῊΝ JustiricaTioN OF HIS MEASURES, BY Exam- 


PLES DRAWN FROM ATHENIAN HISTORY. 
-§ 95. Transition, 


βλασφημίας. Seenote,§10. κατὰ τῶν Εὐβοέων. 
For the calumnies against the Eubceans, see A’schines, § 85. 
Nothing of the kind, however, is found against the Byzantines 
in the published speech, συκοφαντίας. The Athenian 
συκοφάντης, has been well described as “a happy compound of 
the common barrator, informer, pettifogger, busybody, rogue, 
liar and slanderer.” Smrrn’s Antiquities. Demosthenes charges 
4éschines with having brought forward the calumnies against 
the Eubeeans and Byzantines, out of malice and spite, not out 


. 
————— rl 


169 


of any motive of statesmanship and patriotism, since, if they 
had been true, that should have made no difference in the 
measures to be adopted. It is not easy to express the meaning 
of συκοφαντία by a corresponding word in English. Lord 
Brougham translates; “ Vow, in order to show that all the ins 
vectives which he has levelled against the Hubwans and Byzan- 
tines are pure calumnies ;” Kennedy; “ To prove now the ma- 
lignity of those calumnies ;” but neither translation brings out 
the precise point, that the invectives were prompted by the 
malice of the sycophant, not by the necessities of a just accu- 
sation :—that the defamations which he uttered against the Hu- 
beans and Byzantines were purely malicious, μὴ μόνον τῷ 
Ψϑδυδεῖς sive, uttered in a tone implying that he was 
not about to take up that point; τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ gives the 
reason for not taking it up. μὲν is without its corresponding 
particle, which is easily supplied ; ths point implying another, 
mm some respect different. ὕὑπάρχευν siddtas, is more 
‘emphatic than the simple εἰδέναν. Dissen. See § 228. τὰ 
μάλιστ᾽’ ἦσαν ἀληθεῖς, if they were ever so true; or, 
to use Shakespeare’s phrase, most true. καθ’ ὑμᾶς, “ves- 
tra wtate.” Worry. πεπραγμένων καλῶν tH πόλει, 
_ the honorable deeds done by the state, not, honorable to the state, 
as is implied in Lord Brougham’s translation. τῶν ὕπαρ- 
χόντων, facinorum jam patratorum. Opponitur τὰ λοιπά, 
que restant patranda, SCHAEFER. 


This is a professed refutation. Nor were the statements of 
4¥schines altogether unworthy of notice. But, still, the princi- 
pal object was, under the cover of a refutation, to bring forward 
examples from the best days of Athenian history, to justify his 
own course of policy, and thus indirectly to engage on his own 
side the very feelings of pride with which the Athenians re- 
garded those heroic deeds. 


§ 96-100. ExampLezs. 


For the situation of Athens and Sparta just after the Pelo- 
ponnesian war, see Hist. Sketch, § II.; for the expedition to 
Haliartus and to Corinth, ὃ VI. 19. ἁρμοσταῖς. “The 
name, ἁρμοστής, is connected with an expression which occurs 


170 


in Xenophon (de Republ. Laced. 14, § 2;) namely, the nomo- 
thetz, who constituted, arranged, and settled the affairs of the 
towns, are said ἁρμόζειν, whence ἁρμοστὴς is he who has to 
settle and arrange the constitution of a city.” Niebuhr’s Lect. 

on An. Hist. 1.113. The harmost was the commissioner who 
accompanied the garrisons which the Spartans placed in her 
dependent cities τὰς ἄλλας νήσους, such as, Lesbos, 
Samos. τῶν τότε ᾿“θηναίων---πρα χθέντων, al- 
though the Athenians of that day had many wrongs to remem- 
ber, if they had so chosen, against both Corinthians and Thebans, 
for what they did in the Decelean war. πολλά, to be construed 
with ἐχόντων ; “ ἄν jungendum sequenti participio. Est hee 
etiam hypothetica enuntiatio, ad quam subaudias, δὲ ἐβούλοντο ; 
ScHAEFER. μργησικακῆσαν, construed with the dative of the 
person and the genitive of the thing. περί, round about within, 
in, compare περὶ Itakiny, in Italy. Herod.1, 24. τὸν dexe- 
λεικὸν πόλεμον, the last part of the Peloponnesian war, 
after the capture of Decelea in 413, B.C. The assertion in 
Constructionof the above sentence is that the Athenians marched 
the Sentence. to Haliartus, and then to Corinth. But this fact in 
itself was unimportant; it derived its importance from the cir- 
cumstances under which it took place. These were of two 
kinds; the power of the Lacedzmonians contrasted with the 
weakness of the Athenians; and the fact- that the Athenians 
had been formerly injured by those who now sought their aid, 
The sentence is constructed on the principle of placing the 
direct assertion, which is unimportant, in the middle, and the 
important circumstances, by means of participial clauses, the 
one at the beginning, and the other at the end. We may also 
notice that the participles, though they stand in the same rela- 
tion to the verb, are not connected by conjunctions, which are 
omitted for the sake of emphasis; it is this which constitutes 
the proper asyndeton. ταῦτα ἀμφότερα, although 
these both—the expeditions to Haliartus and to Corinth,—they 
neither undertook for benefactors, nor saw to be without danger; 
or, better, although neither of these did they undertake, &e. 
This is a fine example of a sentence, which repeats and con- 
denses the contents of a longer one, The latter part of the 
preceding sentence is expressed by the words οὔθ᾽ ὑπὲρ δύεργε- 
τῶν, and the former part is condensed into the single word 


171 


ἀκίνδυνα. It is observable that the clauses are arranged in an 
order, the reverse of that in the preceding sentence. This kind 
of arrangement, by which the writer passes from the topics A, 
B, through B to A, serves to give unity to the sentence or 
paragraph, and is a common and unconscious arrangement 
of thoughts. It was called by the Greeks chiasmus, or cross- 
arrangement, like the letter Chi, X. πέρας μὲν---δ δῖ 
dé. The contrast is between the common lot of men, and the 
aims of the brave. θάνατος. “Eodem modo, p. 1306, 25. 
καίτοι πᾶσίν ἐστυν ἀνθρώποις τέλος τοῦ βίου θάνατος." SCHAEFER. 
ἐν οἱἰκίσπῳ τις αὑτὸν καθείρξας τηρῆ, should 
keep himself shut up in a cell, as if seeking refuge in some hid- 
den lurking-place. προβαλλομένους, suggests a figure 
rather than is one, although we are obliged to state the resem- 
blance in full; shielded with the good hope of success, φέρϑδυν 
—yévvalws, observe the emphatic position of γενναίως, 
the less important words being thrown in between it and φέρδεν. 
—This gnome is one of those which have been supposed to 
‘show the influence of Plato upon our orator. “ Nimirum nos- 
ter mhomwviter, ut sepe observatum fuit a plurimis. Dixit enim 
ille magister: ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιχειρεῖν τοῖς καλοῖς καλὸν, καὶ πάσχειν 
ὅ t ἂν ξυμβῆ." Tavtor. We have also the opinion of Cicero, 
who says; “Lectitavisse Platonem studiose, audivisse etiam 
Demosthenes dicitur; idque apparet ex genere et granditate 
verborum.” Brut. 31, 121——t«%t0’, that is, that sort of 
things. of πρεσδύτερον. For the facts, see Hist. Sketch, 
§ VII. 28, although Demosthenes somewhat exaggerates the 
importance of the Athenian interference at this juncture. Aa- 
xedavmovious, cohaeret cum ἀνελεῖν, Reiske. οὐδ᾽ 
ὑπὲρ ofa πεποιηκότων---διαλογυσάμενον, nor 
regarding what Mose men had done, for whom you were about to 
encounter dangers, the tone showing the wrongful character of 
what they had done. Kennepy thus; “not reckoning up the 
merits (2) of those whom you were about to fight for.” dvahoyt- 
ζεσθαν, and ὑπολογίζεσθαν, (below,) are used of accounts, the 
former, of settling an account, and the latter, of making a charge 
in an account, but this distinction is not observed here, nor is 
there more than an allusion to these meanings; and this it is 
not necessary scrupulously to express in the translation. 
This sentence is construed on the same principle as that in $96, 


172 


Constructionof already examined. The assertion—désexwiicate— 
the Sentence. as comparatively unimportant, is placed in the mid- 
dle, leaving the important circumstances to open and close. 
But, yet, the sentence differs in two respects; the participial 
clauses are placed in the reverse order; and the sentence ends 
with the same topic,—ovd’ ὑπὲρ ofa, x. τι 4.—with which it be- 
gan, thus making a complete period. σφετεριζομένων 
Θηθαίων. For the facts, see Hist. Sketch, § IL. p. 21. 
καὶ τούτους, even these. The Athenians were peculiarly 
chagrined and indignant at the loss of Oropus. τῶν ἐθε - 
λοντῶν, the volunteer trierarchs then for the first time serv- 
ing the state.. The article shows the practice had become estab- 
lished. τότε and πρῶτον are separated for the sake of emphasis. 
ἐθελοντῶν, from ἐθελοντής .----- ἀλλ᾽ οὔπω, but not yet of this; 
the subject of the trierarchy being taken up presently. *altoe 
—éic ὑμᾶς, and indeed honorably did you act in merely res- 
cuing the island—xai having a diminutive force, had you done 
nothing but rescue the island—but much more honorably stilt 
than this in making, when you had become masters of the citi- 
zens and the cities, a just restitution of these to those very ones 
who had wronged you. καίτον seems to be used here in its 
original signification of “and indeed,” of which there is an un- 
doubted example in § 215. This signification is not in Passow, 
nor in Liddell and Scott. καλὸν and κάλλιον are in apposition 
with the whole sentence and express the judgment of the speaker 
upon it; honorable was it that, &. Kiiunzr, ὃ 266, 2, R. 2. 
“ Sed cum pulchrum sit quod,—tum multo etiam pulchrius est 
quod—Scuarrer. SrepuHen’s Thesaurus, c. 7774, 1). émoujoate 
τὸ σῶσαι----τὸ ἀποδοῦναν — ἐσώσατε.---᾽ἀπέδοτε. ἂν ais, not, 
“quo tempore,” as Reiskn, but “ws in rebus ;” SCHAEFER. 


1. With regard to the above examples, we may consider the 
Selection ana S¢lection and the arrangement. They were tho 
Arrangementof most honorable that were to be found in the his- 
the examples. tory of Athens ;—not inferior, in the lofty spirit of 
~ devotion to Grecian interests, to the heroic deeds of their earlier 
ancestors in the Persian wars. They are taken, it will be no- 
ticed, from the period subsequent to the Peloponnesian war, 
the examples of earlier struggles for the freedom of Greece be- 


1178 

ing reserved for another portion of the. discourse, where they 
would be both more needed and more effective; and they re- 
count the contests which Athens carried on against the two 
powerful states, which after the Peloponnesian war successively 
arosé to dominion in Greece, Sparta and Thebes, and that, too, 
though she was herself reduced in strength, and though she 
fought for those who had been her enemies. Jn the arrange- 
ment, the orator had only to follow the order of time in the first 
two, while he brought in the aid furnished the Eubceans, last, 
not only because it was the last in point of time, but because it 
was most directly to his purpose, since the Eubceans were among 
those whom Demosthenes himself had aided. 

2. It is important to notice that each example is kept distinct 
Separation of by an independent remark interposed for this pur- 
the Topics. pose. Between the first two is interposed the celebra- 
ted gnome concerning death. Between the last two the orator 
inserts the principle of policy, which, he says, follows from the 
preceding examples, namely, that the Athenians, while in ordin- 
ary circumstances they will avenge any injury done to them- 
selves, will still forego that revenge, whenever the liberty of any 
Grecian state is endangered. For other instances of a similar 
distinction of topics, see Remarks on § 25-30, and § 61-72. 

3. We have already seen that there are certain strong points, 
Anew principle Such as the corruption of the leading statesmen of 
of the ‘defense. Greece, the love of ease on the part of the people, 
and the fact that he always acted on the defensive, doing the 
best he could for his country under adverse circumstances, 
which the orator makes the ground-work of his whole speech. 
There is a certain scheme of defense which he preserves througL 
out, and with which nothing that is inconsistent, is ever intro- 
duced. ‘To these strong points he here adds another, or rathe1 
he here for the first time brings it out distinctly. It is this. 
that we should judge of political measures, by the objects at 
which they aim, not by the results of them. Thus, he says it 
becomes the brave to attempi all brave things, but to leave the 
event to God. He has no occasion in this part of his speech to 
take advantage of this principle, but he is training the minds of 
his hearers to receive it, when he hereafter shall directly appeal 
to it—as he does throughout his defense of the unfortunate issue _ 
of the Amphissean war. Thus is preserved a perfect keeping of 

15 


174 


- sentiments and principles in every part of the oration. Aris- 
totle, in his Rhetoric, has a chapter on gnomes or pointed max- 
ims, and gives a reason for their efficacy that they flatter the 
hearer who is pleased to hear sentiments which he holds him- 
self, and, moreover, that they make a favorable impression of 
the character of the speaker. Lib. τι. Ch, 21. 

4, We may also remark that the introduction of these exam- 
PeriodicFormof ples gives a periodic form to the whole statement 
the Statement. concerning his Foreign Administration. He first 
speaks of what the honor of Athens required, § 61-72; he next 
sets forth his own actions as being in accordance with the de- 
mands of that honor, ὃ 73-94; he concludes with what she had 
done in past time honorable to her, ὃ 95-100. He begins with 
what was due to her honor, and ends with what she had done 
in obedience to that honor—thus uniting the whole topic in 
the one point of the honor of Athens. 


§ 101. Conciusion. 


ἐν τοσούτοις καὶ τοιούτοις, “in tot et tantis re- 
bus.” Dissen. ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς---οὔσης, the deliberation be- 
ing in a certain sense in behalf of itself—of its own interests. 
In the examples adduced, the Athenians had fought for the 
safety and freedom of the Greeks, without having any other 
interest in the contest; but in the case of the Eubceans and the 
Byzantines, their own interests were at stake. Every conquest 
of Philip was an attack on the Athenians. This was especially 
the case with respect to the Byzantines. The orator had just 
said that Philip had besieged Byzantium to get possession of 
the Athenian wheat trade; and in the oration on the Cherso- 
nese, he exclaims, that “it was not for the wretched hamlets in 
Thrace Philip was striving, but for Athenian harbors, and dock- 
᾿ yards, and triremes and mines.” The argument is a fortiori, 
Seeing the state in so many and so important cases struggling 
solely for the safety and freedom of others, what was I to coun- 
sel in a case where in addition, our own safety and freedom 
were involved? μνησικακεῖν, This is viewed as an in- 
terrogation by some, but Schaefer well says: “ haec non interro- 
gatio est, sed responsio ficta adversarii, qua orator per ironiam 
utitur, ut illum ostendat nihil aliud quam συκοφαντεῖν." di 


175 


ἃς ἅπαντα προησόμεθα, “for abandoning every thing.” 
KeEennepy. εἴ t+ τῶν ὑπαρχόντωνγ»-- ἐπεχείρησα; 
if I had sought to tarnish the honors of the state by words only? 
—for it could be tarnished in no other way—since the deed 
tiself at least, you would not have done, I well know :—even if 
I had advised. λόγῳ is in contrast with τό ye ἔργον, and means 
simply, by speaking, by counseling. “ Si modo verbis suasissem 
indigna priore virtute vestra ; rem enim); satis scio, non fecisse- 
tis vos.” Dissen. τί ἦν ἐμ ποδών. The orator is very 
fond of ending his topics, with sharp, pointed interrogations like 
these. See § 282; also, § 66, περὶ τῆς παραπρ. 


As usual the orator himself points out the inference which he 
Selfcommend- Would have drawn from his arguments. But it is 
ta more important to remark, from Plutarch, with 
what skill Demosthenes identifies himself with the Athenian 
people, and thus while apparently diminishing his own merits, 
reflects their glory upon himself; and this, without giving 
offense, since he could not have ‘acted otherwise, and act in 
consistency with the honor of the Athenian people. 


a“ 


~ 


II, §102-109. Domestic ADMINISTRATION. 


In farther justification of the eulogium contained in the de- 
cree of Ctesiphon, Demosthenes selects a single measure of his 
Domestic Administration, namely, his Law of the Trierarchy ; 
and this as closely connected with his Foreign Administration. 
It will be convenient to give a preliminary explanation of this 
peculiar institution. | 

The Trierarchy was a Liturgy: and a liturgy, in general 
terms, was a service performed for the people, (Aevt- 
ουργός = λέϊτος, ἔργον.) Its performance involved 
personal service, which was its marked characteristic, and an 
expenditure of money. With respect to the expenditure of 
money, it differed from the extraordinary property-tax (siaqogé,) 
with which it may be compared, in these two particulars ; that 
the amount was uncertain, being left to the one performing the 
service, and the money was expended directly by him, not paid 
τῳ into the treasury and then expended by the state. 

nds, . . . . 
Liturgies were of two kinds; encyclical, which were 


Liturgy. 


176 


performed periodically, such as the Choregia, and the Gymnasi- 
archia; and extraordinary, which were performed only in emer- 
gencies. Of this latter, the trierarchy was the principal. 

The liturgy of the trierarchy pertained to naval affairs, but 
Liturgy of the Was performed only when the navy was in actual 
Trierarcby. service, The state always kept on hand in the 
docks of the Pirzus, a large number of triremes, that is, of hulls - 
and masts, ready to be delivered, as there was need, into the 
hands of the trierarchs. Jn addition, the state undertook to 
furnish pay and provisions for the crews; how far it provided 
the equipment of the vessel is uncertain. When the vessels 
were to be employed in active service, the Strategi appointed 
trierarchs to whom the triremes were assigned by lot. Their 
duties commenced with the delivery of the vessel and were as 
follows: 1. The trierarchs fitted the vessel for sea. The ex- 
Duties of the Pense of this, considerable in any case, would vary 
Trierarchs. with the condition of the vessel. 2. They collected 
the crew and provisioned the ship. It is true the state under- 
took to pay a certain sum for these purposes, but it was fre- 
quently insufficient, and was rarely in season. 3. They com- 
manded the vessel. 4. At the end of the year, when the office 
expired, they were required to return the vessel in good order 
and repair, to the docks. These repairs would be heavy, espe- 
cially, in cases where the vessels had been engaged in fight, or 
overtaken by storms. The whole expense of this liturgy aver- 
aged about one talent, which, with the year’s personal service, 
made it a heavy burden. The trierarchs, however, were ex- 
empted from all other liturgies during the year of their service, 
and were liable to be called on, only every other year. 

It is obvious that in the working of the trierarchy, there 
The Antidosisin WOWld be great liability, both from mistake and 
connection with design, to unequal allotments. Indeed, it was 
the “iverarehy. found necessary from an early period to provide a 
remedy for such inequality, through the process of the Antido- 
sis, or Exchange of Property. Thus, any one, to whom a tri- 
reme had been assigned, might call upon some other person, 
(whom he supposed to be richer than himself,) to take his 
place, and, in case of the refusal of that person, might demand 
of him an exchange of property. If in the legal investigation 
whieh followed, the person upon whom the demand was made 


171 
was found to be the richer, he must either perform the trierar- 
chy, or make the exchange, in which latter case, the service re- 
verted to the original trierarch. 

The trierarchy was one of the ancient institutions of Athens, 
but, partly from inherent faults, and partly from change of cir- 
cumstances, underwent many modifications. It appeared in 
four forms. 

In its original form, each trierarch was required to take the 
First Form of Charge of one trireme. And doubtless, in the best 
the Trierarchy. days of Athens, individuals enough might be found 
to furnish and command all the triremes the state might wish 
to use. Throughout this early period, the office was felt to be 
an office of honor, and was an object of ambition to the first 
citizens. But, at a later period, probably after the disasters in 
Sicily in 412, B. C., when both the state and indi- 
viduals were reduced in wealth, two trierarchs were 
permitted to undertake the charge of one trireme, though only 
in case there were not men of wealth enough to furnish single 
trierarchs. This was called the Syntrierarchy, and the trierarchs, 
syntrierarchs. The system continued without farther change 
till 357, B.C. 

But the system grew less and less efficient, although it was 
not till the Eubcean war in 358, B.C., that the ne- 
cessity of a radical change became apparent. In 
that emergency, either because there were not enough legally 
liable, or from the numerous expedients for escaping or delaying 
the service, the system failed, and for the first time, as Demos- 
thenes says, citizens came forward, and volunteered to serve as 
trierarchs. As, however, the state could not depend perma- 
nently on volunteers, the next year, 357, B.C., a law was intro- 
duced by Peisander, giving a new form to the trierarchy. Ac- 
cording to this law, there was constituted for the charge of the 
navy a Board of twelve hundred citizens, taken from those who 
stood highest on the tax-list. These co-partners, (ouvtedeic) as 
they were called, were divided into twenty classes (συμμοριαί) 
of sixty each ; each class was subdivided into four companies, 
(συντέλειαν) . and each company had the charge of one trireme. 
But, in order the better to secure the performance of their du- 
ties, there was instituted a smaller Board, composed of three 
hundred members, who were selected from the richest of the 


Second Form. 


Third Form. 


178 


co-partners. The members of this board were distributed among 
the twenty symmoriae, and were the leaders or overseers of 
these bodies, (ἡγεμόνες, or, ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν συμμοριῶν.) These - 
leaders, either as a body or distributed among the synteliz, 
performed the actual duties of the trierarchy, reimbursing them- 
selves by an assessment levied equally on all the partners. The 
system, however, only increased the evils it was intended to 
remedy. The duties of the trierarchy were more negligently 
performed than ever, since the leaders of the symmoriz farmed 
them to contractors, who sought only their own interest; at 
the same time the burdens of the poor were increased, because 
the assessments for the reimbursement of the leaders were im- 
posed per capita, which made it a heavy tax upon them, while 
to the rich it was comparatively little or nothing. 

As early as 354, B.C., Demosthenes in his first public speech, 
that on the Symmoriz, proposed, though without 
success, a reform. But so great had the evils be- 
come, that at length in connection with the expedition to By- 
zantium, he was enabled to effect a radical change. According 
to his system, the services of the trierarchy were assigned, not 
according to persons, but according to property; every man 
whose taxable capital amounted to ten talents furnished one 
trireme; to twenty, two; to thirty, three, together with a ten- 
der ; and this was the highest exaction, whatever might be the 
amount of taxable capital, while those who had less than ten 
talents were to unite In companies or syntelias until they made 
up thatsum. This is the measure of which Demosthenes speaks 
in this section. On this subject, see Bozcxu, Pub. Econ. of 
Athens, B. rv. Chs. 11-15. 


Fourth Form. 


éwavehOsiv, that is, from the preceding examples, as if 
from a digression which had led him from his main object. 
ἑξῆς, next after the decree to despatch a fleet to aid Byzan- 
tium, but immediately after, it is probable, so that the trie- 
rarchs for the expedition were appointed in accordance with 
his law. πάλεν αὖ, simply, again; a pleonasm peculiar 
to the Attic. Burr. $156,6. τὸ ναυτικόν, navy, or 
naval affairs, ἀτελεῖς, free—that is, from the burden of 
the trierarchy,—at a small expense. So, Borcxu, Pub. Econ. 
B. 1v. Ch.13, Note; but Dissen and Schaefer refer it to the 


179 

exemption from liturgies, which was granted the trierarchs. 
. &Immunes liturgiarum.” Dissen. yoagels, that is, In a 
παρανόμων γραφή. τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον, “a trial like the 
present.” ὭΟΒΕΒΕ. δὶσῆλθον, “εἰσέρχεσθαν est verb- 

δ δον ATOM: »Η rane ae 
um judiciale, et dicitur tum de causa, quee in judictum 
venit, tum de actore, qui accusat, tum de reo, qui accusatur et 
se defendit, denique de judice.” Brunt. And being prosecuted 
I entered upon this trial before you; or, perhaps, the trial; it 
being difficult to give the allusion expressed in τοῦτον, without 
an awkward circumlocution. “ Atgue accusatus hance causam 
apud vos subw.” Woir. τὸ μέρος, “hie. τὸ τακτὸν μέρος, 
quod erat τὸ πέμπτον." Dissen. Demosthenes was not only 
acquitted, but triumphantly. τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τῶν σὺ μ- 
μορυῶν, refers to the smaller board of Three Hundred. τοὺς 
δευτέρους καὶ τρίτους refer either to those who in 
point of property were in the second and third rank below the 
leaders, or, to those belonging to the second and third classes 
in the valuation of the property-tax. “The chief burden [of 
Demosthenes’ law, | fell,” says Boeckh, “ upon the leaders of the 
former symmoriz, and upon the second and third symmorites 
who were next in order,” p. 573, Otddvar, “offerre.” 
Reisxe. See Burr. §136. 6,10. “Agitur de re facta; nam 
fulmen hic validum vibratur.” ScHAEFER. καταβαλόντα 
ἐᾶν ὃν ὑπωμοσίᾳ. We have already seen, in the Intro- 
duction to these Notes, that any one might stop all proceedings 
on a psephism proposed in the Assembly, by declaring under 
oath that he would bring a παραγόμων γραφή against the mover. 
Such an oath of postponement was called an ὑπωμοσία, and to 
take the oath, ὑπωμόσασθανι. But before the day of trial, the 
mover of the psephism might. relinquish it, and thus take away 
the ground of action, in which case it was said of him, zata- 
βαλόντα ἐᾶν ἐν ὑπωμοσίᾳ. That dropping it I should leave it 
under postponement, See Dissen. ἦν γὰρ αὐτοῖς, for it 
8104 was possible for them to perform the service by sixteens ; 
* that is, for the rich to distribute it among sixteen, both 
rich and poor, αὐτοῖς μέν, not the sixteen, but the rich. 
μικρὰ καὶ οὐδέν, “nauca vel potius nihil.” Dissen. “ καὶ 
seepe auget, ut corrigentis, et idem fere est, quod μάλλον dé, 
mmo.” Bremi, τὸ γιγνόμενον, “ratam portionem.” Her, 
ad Vie. p. 777, tedévar, “scilicet, ἔδδι, quod vi oppositi 


180 


eliciendum.” “tedévae est sepius nwmerare pecuniam.” 
Dissen. JOvoiv,“scilicet, tovjgswy.” Retske. “ Substantivum 
hic et mox ad τῆς μιᾶς subaudiendum latet in verbo tevijgagyzos.” 
Scuagrer. ἐδίδοσαν “obtulerunt.” SouanrerR, δὶἰσῆλ- 
Gov τὴν γραφήν. “TI appeared to the indictment,” Kun- 
$105 NEDY; which, though a modern term, well expresses it. 
" “ Accusatus sum,” Wotr ; that is implied, but it means 
to come before the court in answer to an accusation. ἄρα γ8. 
ἄρα usually requires a negative answer, but sometimes 
§ 107. Abe: dose 5 Beni oy 
an affirmative, in which case it stands for ag’ οὐ, equiv- 
alent to the Latin nonne. Her. ad Vic. p.821. Appears it not 
that I aided you poor at least a little? τῷ μὴ καθυφεῖ- 
vat ταῦτα, that 7 did not drop this matter, that is, the law. 
οὐ δὲ -ΞΞ οὐδὲ μόνον, 8 2. 958. πεῖραν, “documentum hujus 
rei,’ Rutske.—QObserve the condensation of the expression, and 
translate by the fewest possible words—adyvta τὸν adhe. 
μον, either the whole of the Byzantine war, or, of that, to- 
gether with the Amphissean war. Grote refers it to the entire 
war, that is, “from the renewal of the war about August 340, 
B. C., to the battle of Cheronea in August 338, B.C.” Vol. x1, 
467. It will be remembered that Demosthenes has spoken 
only of the Byzantine war. παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, construe with ἔθηκε, 
placed a supplication with you, supplicated you. ‘The words 
are chosen with reference to the usage in the case of suppliants, 
who carried a branch, usually of olive, bound with fillets, and 
placed it upon the altar of the god whose protection they - 
sought. Those who sought the protection of the people placed 
it upon the altar of sacrifice which was in the Pnyx. But it is 
not necessary to retain these allusions in translating. ἐν Mov- 
νψυχίᾳ, where there was an altar of refuge for trierarchs and 
seafaring men, τῶν ἀποστολέων, Naval-commissioners ; 
a body of ten men, whose duty it was to see that the triremes 
were fitted out, and to. expedite the sailing of the fleet. οὐ 
τριήρης, not a trireme was either lost to the state, being cap- 
tured abroad,—from not keeping up, perhaps, with the main 
fleet, in consequence of being badly built—or left here, unable 
to put to sea, ἔξω and αὐτοῦ are contrasted. τὰ ἀδύνατα, 
contrasted with τὰ δέοντα ; failures to perform the trierarchy, 
from want of means; of cowrse—9di—there occurred many 
failures. 


181 


8 108-109. Concnusion or THe AccouNT OF HIS WHOLE 
ADMINISTRATION, 


Although what follows under this head is intimately con- 
nected with what immediately precedes, it seems best to sepa- 
rate it, in erder again to point out the characteristic practice of 
the orator, in expressly enforcing the conclusion to be drawn 
from facts and arguments, and in giving a perfection of form to 
each general topic. | 

βάσκανον---καπόηθες;» ταπευνὸν--«ἀνάξιον. 
The separation of these predicates is worthy of notice. Hach of 
the first βοί,- --βάσκανον, envious, πεπρόν, malicious, πακόηθες, 
enalignani, is personal, alluding to Auschines, while the others 
8109 are general, ἔν τὸ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν πόλεν πολε- 

᾿ τεύμασιν xal ἐν τοῖς “Ἑλληνικοῖς, expressly distin- 
guishes between the Domestic and Foreign Administration of 
public affairs. See § 58. 


This law of the Trierarchy, as we have seen, produced an 
entire fevolution in the naval affairs of the Athenians; but 
what modern statesman, in giving an account of an equally 
important law, could compress it inte the space of ten minutes’ 
speaking. The four causes of the law are expressed in the same 
number of shert clauses, and the results, with almost as much 
brevity. But still, the statement is brief, net because its terms 
are general, conveying much but impressing little, but because 
the chief considerations only are selected, and these are put 
together in the same sentence in the fewest words. It would 
have been easy to expand each particular into a paragraph, but 
the orator chose otherwise. These full but compressed state- 
ments deserve study as much as any part of the oration. 


§$ 110-122. Duiscusston or THE sTRicTLy Lecat Pornts. 


§ 110. Transrrion, 


τὰ wiyeotad ys. The greatest even; quite the greatest. 

For this use of γέ, see Herm. ad Vie. p.824. The orator refers 

to his measures in the Amphissean war. τοὺς wegl αὐτοῦ 

τοῦ παρανόμου λόγους ἀποδοῦναι, to render my de- 
. 16 


182 


Sense concerning the Illegality itself; with reference to the terms 
employed in rendering the accounts in a public scrutiny. Com- 
pare ἕως ἄν λόγον ἀποδῶσι τῇ πόλει. Alschines, §21. ὁμοίως 
--ὑπάρχεξυν μου, that equally, with each of you the knowl- 
edge exists for me; μοι, the dative of advantage; ὁμόιως, the 
same as if I did speak of them, and therefore equivalent to nzhal- 
ominus, by which Dissen translates it——-Observe how mind- 
ful the orator is to maintain his original position, that the sub- 
ject of the Proclamation and the Accounts should follow the 
discussion of the meritorious grounds of Ctesiphon’s decree. 
Observe, also, that in speaking of the measures of his admin- 
istration which he had omitted, the very omission of which, 
however, he brings to bear in his favor, he gives no. intimation 
of being about to dwell upon them, though their consideration 
takes up nearly the whole of the remainder of the oration. 


§111-119. I. Tue Question or AccounraBILitY. 


For an account of the law of Accountability, see Introduction, 
p.89. §111-113. Aw ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE DISTINCTION 
BETWEEN GIFTS AND SERVICES. πδρὶ THY παραγεγραμ- 
μένων νόμων, contrasted laws. “ οἱ παραγεγραμμένον νόμου 
sunt leges, quas legis alicujus vel psephismatis accusator ex ad- 
verso legi accusatz seu psephismati in eadem tabula exarandas 
curabat, ut, contra quas leges, lege nova vel psephismate lato, 
commisisset reus, judicibus manifestius appareret.” Seacer, in 
Crass. Journ. LIII, p. 27. See p.640, 21; Aischines, § 200. 
τοὺς πολλούς, is the object of both ovvetves and μανθάνειν, 
and governs τῶν λόγων; the greater part. διέβαλλε καὶ διω- 
ρἰζετο; the latter verb makes the former more specific; “ has 
falsely and distinctly affirmed.” Lord BroucHaM. ἅπαντα 
τὸν βίον, in contrast with οὐδεμίαν ἡμέραν, draxezvel- 
gvxa, refers here specifically to the management of public 
8111 funds, although it has more frequently the general mean- 

" ing of, having in hand, undertaking. Dissen, Bremi, 
Westermann give the specific; Wolf, Reiske, Brougham and 
Kennedy, the general meaning. Jam accountable, both for what- 
ever money has passed through my hands and for all my public 
conduct, ἐπαγγϑδυλάμενος, “sponte mea pollicitus,” 
ReIskE; or, simply, “sponte mea,” Bremi. τῶν ἐννέα 


188 


8119 ἀρχόντων, “qui imprimis severum examen apud 
᾿ λογιστὰς et ev0ivovs subibant.” Dissen. φιλόδωρον, 
“non, appetens dona, sed, facile largiens.” ScHAEFER. δὲς 
τοὺς συκοφάντας---ἐφιστάνα t, to bring him to trial 
before the Informers—observe the article with συκοφάντας, as 
if they constituted a board corresponding to the Logistee—and 
to place them in authority over the accounts of the moneys he 
has given—* hos tanquam λογιστάς et evOsvous-rationibus repe- 
tendis preeficere.” Dissen. ἄγειν, is used of bringing one before 
the judges for trial. -Aischines says, he understands Demosthe- 
nes will ask, of what am I accountable, εἰ μή τις ἐστὶν εὐνοίας 
δὐθύνη 2 817. ἀλλ᾽’ οὗτος συκοφαντῶν--ὄντα, but 
8118 this malicious accuser says, “ the Senate praised him 
᾿ while liable to the public scrutiny”—quoting the as- 
sertion in the words of Aischines but giving A%schines’ reasons 
for the assertion in his own words—because being treasurer 
of the Theoric fund I made a present of the money which was 
needed, With respect to the Theoric Funds, see Introduc- 
tion. τὰ χρήματα, is rendered by Kennedy, ‘ some of my 
own money ;” by Lord Brougham, “ money of my own ;” but 
the article seems to require a different expression. ἐπ ή» 8 - 
σεν. ‘The law forbids to crown, using the verb στεφανοῦν, for 
which the orator adroitly substitutes, éwa:vety. So, also, he 
speaks of the Senate ; Atschines, of Ctesiphon ; but Westermann 
rejects ἡ βουλή, and Voemel marks it as doubtful. teryomou- 
6¢, see Introduction, p.86. καὶ οὐκ ἐλογυζόμην, and 
made no charge. ὁ μὲν γὰρ λογισμός, for an audit 
requires accounts and examiners. ὁ λογισμὸς, is the act of 
settling ; af εὐθύναν, the accounts to be settled. ὁ δ ί, Ctesiphon. 
—tThe fallacy of this argument of Demosthenes is obvious ; it 
does not follow that because he was not accountable for what 
he gave while treasurer of the Theoric fund, and overseer of the 
repair of the walls, he was not accountable. for whatever else 
he did in the performance of those affairs, and, therefore, under 
a legal disability of receiving the crown. §114-117. Arev- 
MENT FROM PRECEDENTS. ἐν τοῖς νόμοις. Having as- 
serted that there was no law, making a magistrate accountable 
for what he gave to the state, the orator proceeds to show that 
there was no usage. ἔθεσιν. Many manuscripts and many 
of the best editions, Dissen’s, Westermann’s, Voemel’s, give 


184 


ἤθεσιν, as more emphatic; it was in their very natures not to 
require such a thing. Reiske and Schaefer prefer the present 
reading. “Restitui ἔθεσιν." W.DinporF. στρατηγῶν, 
that is, while he was exercising the office of general. Of course, 
Nausicles was crowned for what he gave while in office, and 
before rendering the accounts of his office, since otherwise the 
example would be without force; ἐπιστάτης ὧν, is taken in the 
same way. Thus, Dissen; “cum pretor esset necdum deposu- 
isset honorem et rationes reddidisset.” Χαρίδημος, “scili- 
cet, ἔδωκε," W.Dinvorr. otto, as being present. αὐτὰ 
λαβών, “Decreta iysa opponuntur narrationi Demosthenice 
8115 de Hlorum argumento.” ScHarrer.—May it not be that 

" usage was on the side of Demosthenes?—d0édawxa. It 
seems that on the expiration of his offices, Demosthenes passed 
the usual scrutiny, and with credit; but this could not cure the 
original illegality of Ctesiphon’s decree. εἰσῆγον of hoyie- 
8117 Tal, “cum me scilicet in judicium ducerent logista.” 

’ Dissen. The logistee brought those who were liable to 
the audit before some tribunal, in order to give the usual oppor- 
tunity of accusation, if any one chose. § 118-119. ArcuMEN? 
FROM A COMPARISON OF THE DECREE WITH THE INDICTMENT. 
ἐφ᾽ οἷς οὐχ ὑπεύθυνος ἦν ἐστεφανῶσθαι. The 
argument is this: -Aischines did not charge in the indictment, 
that the reception of the gifts was contrary to the laws; but, if 
not, there was no hability to render an account of them, and, 
therefore, Demosthenes was not accountable for the gifts. Hence, 
since he was crowned for the gifts, he was erowned, by the con- 
fession of Aischines, for what he was not accountable. But 
does it follow, that because the gift is legal, the giver is not 
liable to render am account of it? Aischines shows the con- 
trary. τοῦ προβουλεύματος. τὸ προβούλευμα is the 
proper term, though τὸ ψήφισμα, as in the line above, is often 
used as equivalent. τὸ χάρι»--γράφεν. But, Aschines 
8119 could easily have replied that, although there might be 

’ sufficient grounds for bestowing the crown in themselves 
considered, it would be in violation of the laws to do it, under 
the circumstances, and in the manner proposed. Besides the 
precedents, the assertion that no one is accountable for what he 
gives is Demosthenes’ only argument, the invincible argument 
—0 ἄφνατος ddyos—as according to Atschines (§ 17) he called it ; 
yet it isofnoforce. βάσκανος ὄντως, not an anti-climax ; 


185 


it has a personal application to Aischines. οὐχ ὁ τοεοῦ- 
tos. See §101, and p. 362, for this mode of ending a para- 
graph.—It is universally admitted by commentators that the 
plea of Demosthenes upon the question of Accountability is 
unsatisfactory and sophistical. -A‘schines anticipated and an- 
swered it. We give the substance of his remarks. It was a 
fundamental principle of the Athenian constitution, as we have 
seen, that every one holding an office should render an account 
of his official conduct to the people. But there had grown up 
a practice which entirely frustrated the design of such a scru- 
tiny. Magistrates who were guilty of any offense would obtain 
while in office a proclamation of a crown, which, although it 
would not exempt them from accountability, nor shield them 
from impeachment, secured their acquittal. For, as A‘schines 
says, “the judges were ashamed that the same man, in the 
same city, perhaps, in the same year, should be publicly hon- 
ored by the people with the proclamation of a crown at the 
games for his patriotism, and soon after convicted of fraud in 
the administration of public affairs. Now, it was this state of — 
things, as he says, which gave rise to the enactment of the law, 
“which expressly forbids to crown the magistrates before they 
have rendered the account of their magistracy.” Many at- 
tempts were made to evade this law; especially, it was con- 
tended that it did not apply to what was given to the state. 
Aéschines replies to this plea, with reference to the present case, 
in this language. “When Demosthenes,” he says, “shall im- 
pudently assert that he is not accountable for a gift, suggest 
this to him—let, then, the herald make the usual proclamation, 
‘who wishes to accuse?’ Let any one of the citizens have the 
opportunity to question whether you have given any thing, or 
only paid the state what was its due? Do not snatch at public 
favor, do not seize the votes from the hands of the judges, do 
not as a citizen go before the laws but after them, for only thus 
will the democracy be safe.” This is evidently a satisfactory 
answer. ΤῸ crown one for a gift would as really defeat the ob- 
ject of the law as to crown for any thing else. The gift might 
be given for no other purpose than to obtain thereby a crown, 
which might afterwards be made use of to secure an acquittal 


_ in ease of an impeachment. Besides, the law forbade to crown 


for any thing, until the scrutiny had been passed. 
16* 


~ 


186 


§120-122. IL, Tse Question or Tue Prociamarion. 


The argument is drawn, first, from precedents, and then, from 
the words of the law. μυριάκις μυρίους, ten thousand 
times ten thousand; “thousands of thousands.” Kennepy. 
πολλάκις αὐτός. Demosthenes mentions only four crowns 
bestowed on himself. Notes, p.163,§ 83. ζῆλον, “i. q. τὴν 
αὐτὴν τιμήν ;” ScHAEFER; the same value. ἀναγορευέτω, 
§121 “scilicet, ὁ κῆρυξ." WursteRMANN. τί οὖν», ὦ Tahal. 

᾿πῶωρὲδ, συκοφαντεῖς. This is not the language 
of indignation, but, as Ulpian says, of commiseration. Why, 


miserable man, do you accuse ?—as if pitying him for being so 


beside himself as to contend against so plain a law. In the 
same spirit he adds; why not purge yourself with hellebore for 
this ?— Why not cure yourself of this madness? He then pro- 
ceeds seriously. φθόνον δίκην εἰσάγων, οὐκ ἀδε- 
κήματος οὐδενός, These genitives sustain different rela- 


_ tions to δίκην, and must be expressed in English by different 


| prepositions. ‘Are you not ashamed of bringing a suit out of 


envy, and not for any crime? “ φθόνου δίκη est lis, que non 
causam habet in culpa ejus, qui accusatur, sed in imvidia ejus, 
qui accusat.” Bremi. ἔπειτα τοιαῦτα-- κομιζόμενος. 
§ 129 Kschines had given (§ 168-170) an ideal representation 

᾿ of a friend of the people, as he conceived the character 
—that he be free-born, that he have an hereditary kindness, or 
at least no enmity, towards the people, that he be temperate, 
sound in counsel and able in speech, brave—with an applica- 
tion of course to Demosthenes. Demosthenes here, retorts. 
Then, though thus acting, you speak of what ought to belong 
to the friend of the people, as if you,—not any one—had bar- 
gained for a statue, to be made according to a model, and 
then refused it—ov κομιζόμενος, “non recipisses,” Dissen— 
though made according to the model; that is, you recommend 
one course and practice another; or, but received it, though not 
made—ovx ἔχοντα, statuam non ita perfectam, WoL_r—accord- 
ing to the model: that is, you are satisfied in practice with 
what falls far below your ideal. xata συγγραφήν, ae- 
cording to a written contract ; which, however, as Lord Brough - 
am suggests, must have contained a model or plan. λόγῳ, 


187 

seems used in an abstract sense; by talk. καὶ βοᾷς. The 
connection is obvious. Public men, in your view, are known 
by their speeches; and, hence, you cry out. ῥητὰ καὶ ἄρρητα, 
*“ fanda infanda, h.e. quidquid in mentem venit.” Dissen. 
ὀνομάζων, governs two accusatives. And you cry out, calling 
me every sort of name, as of from a cart, what belongs to you 
and your race, not to me. Compare, καὶ τὴν μητέρα κἀμὲ καὶ 
nkvtas ἡμᾶς ῥητὰ καὶ ἄῤῥητα κακὰ ἐξεῖπον. p. 540. Scuaurer. 
ὥσπερ ἐξ ἁμάξης. See 811, Ρ. 117. ‘With respect to | 
the Proclamation, it is somewhat doubtful what the law really | 
was. Aischines quotes a law which seems to be decisive: “If 
the senate shall crown any one, the proclamation shall be made 
in the senate-house, but if the people, in the Assembly, and no 
where else.’ §32. The law quoted above by Demosthenes 
seems to contradict this. “Those whom any of the boroughs 
shall crown shall have the proclamation made in the boroughs, 
except the people of Athens or the senate shall crown any, in 
which case it shall be lawful for the proclamation to be made 
in the Theater, at the Dyonisiac festival.” -A‘schines antici- 
pates the appeal to this law, and gives the following explana- 
tion. The performances of the theater had been interrupted by 
the number of proclamations of various kinds, which were made 
during the festivals. The person, who was crowned by a tribe 
or borough, was ambitious of having it proclaimed before the 
assembly of the theater. So, too, the one who had manumitted 
a slave would like to have it announced before so large a mul- 
titude. But the most common proclamation was of Foreign 
Crowns. Athenian citizens would obtain crowns from foreign 
states, and then seek this more public proclamation of them. 
By this means, not only were the performances of the theater 
interrupted, but such persons were more honored than those who 
received crowns from the Athenian people, or the senate. It was 
to meet these evils, according to Atschines, that the Dyonisiac 
law, quoted by Demosthenes, was passed. Atschines, without 
quoting the words of the law, professes to give the substance ; 
“that there shall be no proclamation made in the theater, of 
the manumission of a slave, of a crown conferred by a tribe, a 
borough, or by any one else.” To this law, there is this excep- 
tion, “ except the people shall vote it may be done.” Now the 
Jaw with this exception may be interpreted in two ways. Ats- 


188 


chines interprets thus: there shall be made no proclamation of 
a crown, conferred by a tribe, a borough, or by any one else, 
that is, by foreign states, except the people permit it. This in- 
terpretation makes the Dyonisiac law inapplicable to the decree 
of Ctesiphon, and leaves that decree in direct violation of the 
law quoted by Aischines. But Demosthenes interprets the 
law thus: there shall be no proclamation of a crown in the 
theater, whether conferred by a tribe, a borough, or by any one 
else, that is, either by foreign states, or by the people of Athens 
or the senate, except the people vote it. This interpretation, 
and it is not a forced one, brings the decree of Ctesiphon within 
the scope of the law, and makes it legal. Which is the true 
interpretation we can not say, for neither orator has given the 
law in full. It will be observed that the law as quoted by De- 
mosthenes has, “ except the people and the senate shall crown 
any”—whereas in his comment it is—* except the people or 
the senate shall decree,” that is, that it may be done. It is the 
same thing—the people and the senate may decree that those 
whom they crown shall have the proclamation made in the 
theater. It looks a little as if the former, στεφανοῖ, was De- 
mosthenes’ interpretation of the law, and the latter, ψηφίσηται 
its actual words, especially as A‘schines uses the same. 


As a matter of rhetorical study, this part of the speech 15 
worthy of much attention, as a good example of the mode of 
treating contemptuously that which the orator would have the 
audience believe to be contemptible. A’schines had laid out 
his greatest strength upon the legal points, devoting to them 
nearly one-third of his whole speech. But Demosthenes dis- 
misses them, not merely with brevity but contempt. Still, he 
could not have ventured upon this, unless he had already se- 
cured the favor of the audience. He had shown that the crown 
was well conferred, and had so thoroughly aroused the spirit of 
his countrymen as to make them indifferent to the merely tech- 
nical points. Hence, too, we see again the importance of that 
masterly movement of the orator, by which he*was enabled to 
postpone these points to the present time. (See p.114.)\ The 
postponement of tupics, in order to treat them more successfully, 
may be fair, or it may be sophistical. In the present case, 
¢schines called it a mere trick οὗ the court-house, and warned 


189 


the audience against it. (See pp. 100--101). Upon the sophis- _ 
tical use, see Whately, Part I. Ch. 8, §7. Also, upon the mode 
of treating what the orator would have thought contemptible, 
Part I. Ch. 3, §8. : 


§ 123-125. TRANSITION BETWEEN THE Seconp AND THIRD 
| Parts oF THE ORATION. 


καίτοι καὶ τοῦτο. “Intelligendum ἐγθυμητέον vel sim- 
ile verbum. Eodem modo pp. 48, 442, 568.” W. Dinporr. But 
in the utterance, the tone would express the verbal conception. 
ἐγὼ λοιδορίαν---λέγευιν, Compare Cicero: “ Accusa- 
tio crimen desiderat, rem ut definiat, hominem ut. notet, argu- 
mento probet, teste confirmet: maledictio autem nihil habet 
propositi preter contumeliam, que, si petulantius jactatur, con- 
vicium, si facetius, urbanitas nominatur.” Pro M. Ceelia. But 
contrast the condensed energy of Demosthenes with the more 
flowing but beautifully constructed sentence of Cicero. κατὰ 
τὴν αὑτῶν φύσιν; “prout cuique naturalis indoles obtigit, 
seu lenis, mitis, sedata, aut atrox, vehemens, cita, impetuosa, 
szeva, ita probra sunt, quee adversario ingerit”—we here cut off 
the stream of Reiske’s eloquence. οὐχ ἵνα συλλέξαντες 
--ἀλλήλους, not, that assembling you in them we should 
upbraid one another—xaxs λέγωμεν ἀλλήλους----ιστ ἢ, scandals 
drawn from private life. ταῦτα τοίνυν --- ἐμοῦ, now 
8194 then, knowing this not less than I. οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ 
᾿ ἐνταῦθα-- ἀπελθεῖν, not truly, not even—oid’ 
repeated: for emphasis—in this, ought he to get off with less 
than he gave. ἔλαττον, “scilicet, τῶν λοιδοριῶν." ScHAEFER. 
It is necessary in English to add—ihan he gave—which is ob- 
viously implied. ἐπὶ ταῦτα, “ad dedecora hominis domes- 
tica.”” ScuanFeR, εἶτα οὗ μέν---ὠαοἀὀἀὀπήντηκας, why then‘) 
where,—ov genitive of the relative used as an adverb and equiv-\/ 
alent to “quibus in rebus,” with which Schaefer translates it— 
on the one hand, it was in your power to take punishment from 
me according to the laws, in behalf of these—inig τούτων, 
“ pro his civibus Atheniensibus hoc judicium circumstantibus,” 
Reiske—if I indeed had wronged them, did you neglect it, in 
the official Audits, in the Indictment for Illegal Propositions, 
in other kinds of prosecutions ; but, where on the other—ov δ᾽ 


190 


corresponding to οὗ uéy—J—ty® μέν, having its correspondence 
in τῇ πόλεν 0’, but best expressed by the tone—stand clear by 
every consideration, by the laws, by time, by prescription,— 
τῷ χρόνῳ being generic, and τῇ προθεσμίᾳ specific, Rerske—bdy © 
my frequently having been tried before on all these charges, 
by my never having been convicted of crime against you, but 
where the state must of necessity share more or less in the 
glory at least of the public measures, there you have met me? 
τούτων μὲν ἐχθρός. We expect πόλεως, but how much 
᾿ greater force is given to the remark by this unexpected appeal 
to the audience before him. Utpran.——The argument is this: 
You neglected to attack me when you would have done it, had 
you been really my enemy ; you attack me now, when you can 
not harm me but must harm the state; you must be aiming, 
therefore, a secret stab at the state. 


This section may be regarded as the conclusion of the De- 
fense. Demosthenes professes that he had made out a clear 
case, and need go no farther in that line of remark. As such a 
conclusion, it contains, it is worthy of notice, the same topic 
Periodic Form. With which the defense opened. At the outset, 
of the Defense. § 12-16, Demosthenes charged A‘schines with dis- 
honest motives as an accuser; we have here the same charge. 
In both cases, the charge is founded on the same fact, that Ats- 
chines had not prosecuted the crimes at the time they were 
alleged to have been committed, but so long after that they 
could not be properly punished, even if true; in both cases we 
-have the same inference of dishonesty in motive; the only dif 
ference being that in the first instance, Aischines is accused of 
being influenced by hate towards a personal enemy, in the lat- 
ter, by hate towards the state. Is this return to the original 
topic, an instance of regard for artistic unity so obvious in Greek 
writers, and preéminently so in Demosthenes, or, was it acci- 
dental? This section serves also as a Transition to the Third 
Part of the oration. It states the reason, or rather the pretext, 
under which Demosthenes changes his ground, and from acting 
on the defensive, becomes the assailant. 


Be Oe” & ΕΝ 
ANF 


Library. 


APP Nigiiforni®: ZA 


191 


§ 126-252. Turep Parr or ΤῊ 


ATTACK ON ASSCHINES. 


' The division of the oration into three grand portions, together 
with the reasons for such division, has been mentioned in the 
Introduction, (pp. 97-99); and we need here do no more than 
allude to it. The First Part treats of irrelevant matter, the 
transactions of the fatal peace of 346, B. C., which the orator 
would throw out of the case, though he dare not leave it out 
of his speech; the Second Part treats of those public transac- 
tions in which, as chief statesman, he took the lead, ending with 
the triumph of Athens in the Byzantine war, and this consti- 
tutes his formal defense of the decree of Ctesiphon; the Third 
Part, under the disguise of recrimination, treats of the trans- 
actions. of the last-war, in which Athens was defeated and. con- 
quered ;—thus leaving owt of the Defense the fatal beginning 
and the still more fatal termination of the contest with Philip, 
and bringing énto it, only that portion in which Athens was for 
a short time triumphant, while, however, it is to be remembered 
that Demosthenes could with safety have left neither out of his 
speech. This movement, by which Demosthenes represents him- 
self as struggling to ward off a great evil brought upon the 
country by Aischines, is not less masterly than that by which 
he treats of the first peace as not pertaining to his case, or 
that by which he postpones the discussion of the strictly legal 
points. 

This part of the oration, after an Introduction, § 126-128, 
takes up first the Private Life of Aischines, §129-131, and 
then his Public Life. Under the latter head, the orator treats 
of several individual transactions, ὃ 132-139, and then proceeds 
to the Amphissean war, which is the real subject of this part of 
the oration; we will give the analysis, when we reach the topic. 


§ 126-128. Inrropuction. 


ἡ μὲν εὐσεδὴς καὶ δικαία ψῆφος, the decision, 
which piety and justice requires ; εὐσεθής, with reference to 
the oath of the judges, upon which in the exordium, and else- 
where, Demosthenes has laid so much stress διὰ τάς --- 


— 


_ 
~ 


192 


δὶρημένας, “Ordo constructionis: δεὰ τὰς ὑπὸ τού- 
tov εἰρημένας βλασφημίας. Inversio hxc ordinis est 
ex idiomatis Greece; ne de vocibus transponendis cogites.” 
Scuarrer. See 8298, 314. ἀντὶ πολλῶν καὶ ψευδῶν, 
instead of many and false things; such as Aischines had spo- 
ken of him. Others, “as a set-off te his many and false chars 
ges ;” which, however, is implied in the preceding clause. αὐτὰ 
τἀναγκανότατ᾽, barely the most necessary. τίς ὧν καὶ 
τίνων. See §10 and note, p.117, λόγους τίνας dvs 
Giger, and what expressions he carps at; connected with 
δεῖξαν; “et quas orationes exagitet.” ΝΈΜΕΙ. Seager proposed 
τινάς, and translated, “et dictiones guasdam calumniatur,” 
connecting διασύρεν with ἄρχει. Crass. Jour. LITT, p. 52. Ap- 
i by Scuarrer, and edited by Dissen and WxsTERMANN. 
e subjoin an example of Aischines’ criticism; οὐ μέμνησϑε 
αὐτοῦ τὰ μιαρὰ καὶ ἀπίϑανα ῥήματα, ἃ πῶς 108’ ὑμεῖς, ὦ σιδήρεου, 
ἐκαρτερεῖτε ἀκροώμενοι ; ὅτ᾽ ἔφη παρελϑὼν “" ἀμπελουργοῦσι tives 
τὴν πόλυν, ἀνατετμήκασί τινες τὰ κλήματα τοῦ δήμου, ὑποτέτμηταυ 
τὰ νεῦρα τῶν πραγμάτων, φορμορραφούμεϑα ἐπὶ τὰ στεγὰ, τινὲς 
σιρῶτον ὥσπερ τὰς βελόνας διείρουσε.᾽᾽ ταῦτα δὲ τί ἐστιν, ὦ κίνα-- 
δος ; ῥήματα ἢ θαύματα. §166. See, also, $72. τὶς τῶν 
μδτρίων, what ordinary man. φθέγξασθαι, with this, the 
sentence breaks off, without an apodosis. Aiaxégs—Mivws, 
§127 a proverb, denoting an upright man. σπερμολόγος; 
’ “a word-monger.” Lord Brovcuam. The Athenian 
philosophers applied the same epithet to Paul. τί ἄν θέλοι ὃ 
σπερμολόγος οὗτος Aéyery; Acts17:18. περίτριμμα ἀγο- 
ρᾶς, ahack of the forum; compare, περίτρυμμα δικῶν, Aris- 
toph. ΝΡ. 447. ὄλεθρος γραμματεύς, a pestilent 
scribe ; ὄλεθρος taking the place of an adjective. ὦ γῆ καὶ 
ἥλιε. The words of Alschines are; “᾿Εγὼ μὲν οὖν, ὦ γῆ καὶ 
ἥλιε καὶ ἀρετὴ καὶ σύνεσις καὶ παιδεία, ἧ διαγιγνώσκομεν τὰ καλὰ 
καὶ τὰ αἰσχρὰ, βεβοήϑηκα καὶ εἴρηκα. § 260. δήπου θ ἐν ---- 
I think, or, if I mistake ποῖ; with a sneer——This section, we 
easily observe, is in good keeping with the professed object of 
recrimination. "We may notice, however, that as Demosthenes 
charged the blame of speaking his own praises, upon Aischi- 
nes, who had made it necessary for him ¢o do it, so, here, he 
represents himself as driven to invective, by the necessity which 
the previous invective of Aischines had forced upon him. 


198 


§ 129-131. Private Lirz or Aiscuines. 


οὐκ ἀπορῶν---μνησθῶ, at no loss what fittingly to 
say of you and yours, I am at a loss what to say first: I am at 
a loss for the first thing I may mention. ἐδούλεδυδ παρ᾽ 
᾿Ελπίᾳ, served with Elpias; that is, was a slave of the 
schoolmaster Elpias. πρὸς τῷ Θησδίῳ, near the Theseum; 
a temple of Theseus in the northwestern part of the city. dv- 
déuxorvts γράμματα. “Est γράμματα διδάσκειν docere 
pueros legere et scribere.” Disszen. yolvexas, “ fetters.” 
ξύλον, awoodencollar. τοῖς μεθημερυνοῖς γάμ- 
0s, prostitutions in the day time. “Sed quotidianus dicitur 
καθημερυνός, diurnus μεθημερινός, SCHAEFER. γάμοις. “Ku- 
phemismus, quo meretricum vita indicatur.” Bremi. τῷ */ev- 
ol@, the brothel. πρὸς τῷ καλαμίτη ἥρωϊ. The 
exact meaning is a matter of conjecture. Near the hero, Kala- | 
mites; that is, near his statue or monument, “Statuo demum 
fuisse herois cujusdam (Calamitem vocabant,) sive statuam sive 
sacellum sive monumentum, juxta vero porticum sive fornicem 
eoque pro lupanari usas fuisse, que Athenis prostabant.” 
Rztske. But Schefer makes ἥρωϊ the proper name, Heros, and 
καλαμίτη, an epithet. “ Homo dictus fuit καλαμίτης, quod τοῖς 
καλάμους perite uteretur aut in curandis ossium fracturis aut ad 
alios usus chirurgicos.” He refers to p. 419, 22. πρὸς τῷ τοῦ 
“How tov iatgot.. Heros, the surgeon. tottaywverrtiy 
ἄκρον, a third rate actor at the top of his profession,— 
dixoov-—. Kisnner, ὃ 245, R. 5——The terms selected in this 
account of Aischines’ parentage are expressive of the utmost. 
contempt. His father was not only aslave, but a base, fettered | 
slave, and a slave to one who exercised the humblest calling; 
his mother, not only a prostitute, but a most shameless one, and 
the person who raised her from her honorable employment was 
the son of a slave, and a galley pipe-player; and Aischines 
himself—the beautiful puppet—not an actor, but an actor of | 
third parts, though, to be sure, in these he shone-——é 2’ αὐ-᾿ 
τῶν δὲ ὧν αὐτὸς βεβίωκεν -- ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν αὐτῷ Be- 
5180 βιωμένων. Compare τὰ σοὶ κἀμοὶ βεβιωμένα. 8.125. 
᾿ The relative with the finite verb can sometimes be best 
translated by the participle, or ΩΝ corresponding substantive. 
1 


194 


Thus, οἷς γὰρ δὐτυχήκεσαν = εὐτυχήμασι. 818, So, here; I 
will begin with the acts of his life. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν 
ἣν, for he was not one of the ordinary sort,—v ἔτυχεν == τῶν 
τυχόντων, as above—but of those accursed by the people; that 
is, he was not a common, ordinary knave, but a great, public 
malefactor. The connection seems to be this; I will not dwell 
upon the private vices of his ancestors ;—it would be unworthy 
of me—I will begin with A‘schines himself, and his publie 
crimes. The paragraph is, indeed, the transition to the account 
of the public life of Aischines. The sentence has received sev- 
eral interpretations. The above is substantially that of Reiske. 
** Non enim est Aischines de genere hominum triviali, vulgart, 
sed unus illorum inventu rarorum hominum, quos populus per 
preconem publice devovet, h.e. parricida et proditor patriz 
eoque dignus cujus in mores et cursum universee vite inquira- 
tur.” Dissen makes the orator speak of the acts of his life ; 
“‘ neque enim vulgaris generis erant,—é BeSlaxev,—sed qualia 
populus execratur.”’ But this weakens the sense, and besides, 
it is Aischines himself who is the subject of discourse. “ὁ δῆ- 
μος καταρᾶται pertinent ad solemnem precationis formu- 
lam, quam preco populi nomine pronuntiabat initio comitio- 
rum.” Dissen. ὀψὲ γάρ wote—for late in life at length. 
“ ὀψὲ refertur ad Aischinis xtatem. Is dicitur grandis natu 
_ atque sero factus civis et orator, adeoque tam sero, ut res pau- 
cis diebus ante accidisse videatur.” Scuarrer. ὀψὲ λέγω; 
late, say 13 χθὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ πρώην, yea, rather 
—piv οὖν, “immo.” Hur. ad Vie. p. 842—yesterday or the 
day before; χθὲς καὶ πρώην, a proverbial expression ; 
ἐποίησεν, he made his father instead of Tromes, Atrome- 
tos. ἐποίησεν, “aliquanto gravius, opinor, quam ὠνόμα- 
σεν: quippe hoc verbo sarcasticee quid acerbitatis indicari vide- 
tur. Quod quale sit, facile senties, si memineris ἀτρόμητος etiam 
énvOetix@s dici de intrepido. Antipater in Antholog. Palat. 7.1, 
Ῥ. 270. Ζεὺς ἀτρόμητος εἶδεν." SCHAEFER. σεμνῶς πάνυ, 
compare μάλα σεμνῶς. §385. Τ᾿ λαυκοθέαν by adding two 5}]-᾿ 
lables to Τλαυκίς. "Εμπουσαν. Empusa; the name of ἃ spectre, 
sent from Hecate, which transformed itself into different shapes. ὦ 
See Arist. Rane, 288. ἐκ tot πάντα ποιεῖν καὶ 
πάσχειν, “quod quevis turpia lucri causa faceret et pate- 
retur, quasi queedam Empusa se in omnes formas transformans.” 


195 


Dissen. τῆς ἐπωνυμίας, the nickname. οὐχ ὅπως, 
5131 is to be explained by an ellipsis, “Οὐχ ὅπως est οὐκ ἐρῶ 

᾿ ὅπως, non dicam quomodo.” Her. ad Vie.788. Hence, 
it may mean either not only, or, not only not, as here, accord- 
ing to the following clause. τὸς ἀμφισβήτησις. ἀμφισ- 
βητεῖν followed by ὡς or ὡς οὐ, is to argue that a thing is or 1s 
not. So, here; as to things about which it may be argued 
that possibly he has spoken in behalf of his country, I pass 
them by.- 


We may notice a certain completeness at which the orator 
aims. In the opening of the oration, he defended himself, first, 
against the attacks upon his private life, and then proceeded to 
measures of a public character. So, here, he begins with 
charges against the private life of A’schines, As he afterward 
takes up this topic, and pursues it at great length, it seems to 
be brought in, in the present connection, with reference, at least 
in part, to the unity of this portion of the oration. 


Pusuic Lire or AMscHInEs. 


§ 132-137. Isotatep TRANSACTIONS, 


§ 132-135. His conpuct ΙΝ THE CASE OF ANTIPHON.—@ 71 0- 
ψηφυσθέντα, properly, ejected from the citizen-class; per- 
haps, outlawed. “Vox ea generaliter et quasi proprie sumta 
absolutionis vim obtinet; verum in causa peregrinitatis, ubi 
queeritur, an civis sit, necne, condemnandi vel ejiciendi ; ideo 
vero, quoniam,;-cum civium recensio fieret, quae δια ψήφιεσις, qui 
ex eo censu dejiceretur, ἀποψηφισθῆναι recte dici potuit. Taytor. 
The revisal of the citizens’ roll, at which Antiphon was ejected, 
§ 133 was in 346, B.C. τὴν ὑμετέραν. dyvorav— 

᾿συμβεβηκυῖαν, “γοῦν ill-timed error,’ ΚΈΝΝΕΡΥ ; 
which well represents, though it hardly translates, the words. 
ἄγνου α refers to that state of mind, so often complained of 
by Demosthenes, and expressed by various words, such as ῥαθυ- 
μία, ἀμέλεια, through which the Athenians paid little earnest 
attention to public affairs, sacrificing from mere heedlessness 
and ignorance of the real state of things, their own best inter- 
ests. But it is not easy in the present case to give a word-for- 


196 


word translation; by neglecting the participle, which would 
not have been used in English, and converting the abstract into 
the concrete, Kennedy has finely represented the thought. So, 
also, has Lord Brougham, though in a different way ; “ seeing 
you thrown off your guard at a critical moment.” ἀπὸ τῆς 
αὐτῆς ἀγνοίας, from the same thoughilessness. mQo08l- 
λεσθε. Wolf conjectured προσείλεσθε, which is admitted into 
the text by Veemel. The people, it would seem, before voting 
for a syndic, had made the Areopagus the final arbiter of the 
election, and the Areopagus, in exercise of this authority, 
rejected Aischines and appointed Hyperides. ‘Yaegeldy. 
Fragments of his speech, the λόγος “Ζηλιακός, remain, ἀπὸ 
tot βωμοῦ, the most solemn form of voting——With re- 
spect to this charge against Antipho, we know nothing more 

an what is here said by Demosthenes, though from the con- 
demnation of him by the Areopagus, it was probably true. 
With respect to his examination by the Areopagus, at the insti- 
gation of Demosthenes, and his being tortured and slain by the 
people, it is mentioned by Deinarchus in his speech against 
Demosthenes, § 46, who says that Antipho was descended from 
Harmodius. The time of this transaction can not be certainly 
determined. Both the affair of Antipho, and the rejection of 
féschines as syndic, which were closely connected, are refer- 
red to in the περὶ παραπρεσβείας, p. 406, so that it could not 
have been Jater than 342-3, B.C. It was probably after the 
peace of 346, B.C. There had been for a long time a contest 
between the Athenians and the Delians, for the possession of 
the temple of Delos. The matter was finally brought before 
the Amphictyonic Council. It is this appeal to which reference 
is here made. But as the Athenians were in possession, the 
appeal was doubtless made by the Delians, and if so, probably 
after the admission of Philip into that council, since they might 
well hope his influence would be adverse to the Athenians in 
the matter. Hence, too, we may see the reason why the Are- 
opagus rejected Aischines, and appointed Hyperides, who was 
strongly opposed to the Macedonian interest. See WESTERMANN. 
§ 136-137. Conpvuct or ANsCHINES IN THE CASE OF THE ORA=_ 
ΤΟΝ PyTHON, AND THE spy ANAXINUS. ὕ»δαγίου, refers not 
to age, but. to character. πολλῷ ῥέοντι, flowing deep. 
“Qui magno flumine verborum inveheretur in vos.” DissEn. 


197 


Compare salso multoque fluentt. Hor. Sat. 1, 7,28. When it 
was that Demosthenes gained this victory over the celebrated 
Byzantine orator can not be certainly determined. 4.» α ξ ἐνφ. 
Nothing further is known of Anaxinus than what is mentioned 
by Demosthenes———With this the orator ends the list of indi- 
vidual acts, both because he has gone far enough to give color 
to his professed design of recrimination, and because the enu- 
meration of particulars can never be successfully carried very 
far; while, at the same time, he hurries on to his real object, 
the Amphissean war.—§ 138-139. TRANSITION TO THE CON- 
puct oF AMsCHINES IN GETTING UP THE AMmPHISSEAN War. 
πολλά---ἔτι τούτων. “ ἔτι verte preterea et junge πολλὰ 
τούτων." ScHAEFER. ὧν οὗτος ---εὑρέθη. Many of those 
things, with which—oy by attraction for ¢—this man was 
found, on the one hand, serving the enemy, and, on the other, 
abusing me. ὑπηρετεῖν is to serve, that is, do acts of service, 
ἐπηρεάζειν, to abuse, to do abusive things, both containing the 
object within themselves, yet both may be construed with the 
pronoun in the accusative, expressive of that object. It 1s pre- 
cisely so in English, with the exception that when the object is 
expressed, the relation is denoted by the preposition ; as, to 
serve, to serve with, to abuse, to abuse with. οὐ τέθετα ε--- 
ὀργήν». εἰς μνήμην θεῖναν τι, is to lay up a thing in the mem- 
ory, asin English. But, εἰς ὀργήν θεῖναι t+, has no correspond- 
ing expression in English, and, hence, another verb must: be 
introduced. But these things are not laid up among you in 
careful memory nor resented with that anger which is appro- 
priate. διόπερ ῥᾷον---πολιτεύεσθαιυ, therefore is it 
easier and safer always for one to be a hireling, serving the 
enemy, than io be a statesman, maintaining the post of patriot- 
ism. μισθαρνεῖν, and πολιτεύεσθαι, like other verbs formed 
from substantives, can be best translated by the corresponding 
English substantives—Several of the topics in this oration 
have been treated in other orations. Hence, we often meet in 
them with the same form of the sentence, and not unfrequently 
with the same words. But, on comparison we find the sen- 
tences in this oration more forcible ; the expressions are more 
condensed, and the antitheses more pointed. Thus, we find the 
rudiments of the present sentence, in the Third Philippic: ἀλλὰ 


καὶ μετὰ πλείονος ἀσφαλείας πολιτεύεσθαν δεδώκατε τούτοις ἢ τοῖς 
ig 


198 


8139 ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λέγουσιν. §55.—p ave Qos —“jungendum 

~~" esse verbo moheuetysequentia docent.” ScHAEFER. τὰ 
πλοῖα ἐσεσύλητο. 860 8 177. Χερρόνησος ἐπορ- 
θεῖτο. See 892, ἐπὶ τὴν ᾿Αττικὴν ἐπορεδύεθ᾽ ἅν- 
θρωπος, In attacking the Chersonese Demosthenes regarded 
Philip as attacking Attica. See §101, Note, p.174. “ Volebat 
(Philippus) Ponti, Euxini, Hellesponti, maris A%gei imperio 
potiri, atque ita ipsi Atticee imminere dici poterat.” DissEy. 
ἅνθρωπος, “cum contemptu.” Dissen. 6 to wév—d εἴ- 
Sate, not one act is there which this Iambic mouther can 
show that he did for you. ἰαμβειοφάγος, “non de φιλο- 
λοιδόρῳ, sed de λυμαινομένῳ τοὺς ἰάμβους, h.e. de disperdente 
bonos trimetros per vitiosam pronuntiationem, qua homo iambos 
tanquam absorbere videretur.” Scuazrer. See §267. οὐδ᾽ 
ἔστιν-- Αϊσχίνη, not a decree great or small, so far as 
4Aischines is concerned. ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ὕδατι, The speak- 
ers were limited to a given amount of time, which was meas- 
ured by the clepsydra. δυοῖν θάτερον, in apposition with 
the whole sentence. Reiske would supply zovet», but Schaefer 
says, “αὐτὸν ἀγάγκη syntactice continuatur sequentibus.” See 
p- 113.——It will be observed that the orator follows a certain 
order. The conduct of Aischines against his country during 
the uncertain period of the peace, 15 referred to, but only to 
be forgiven. The period of his inaction during the war, that 
is, the Byzantine war, when Athens was victorious and nothing 
could be done for the enemy, is then mentioned. He then 
pauses, and asks—as he was inactive when his country was 
prosperous and he could not harm her, was he also inactive 
when the time came that he could harm her?—and this brings 
him to the Amphissean war. 


THe AMPHISSEAN WAR. 


The subject of the Amphissean war, though a vital portion 
of the oration, forms a distinet whole by itself. It opens with 
a formal and solemn introduction, and its topics are arranged 
with that consummate art which is apparent in the construction 
of the entire speech. It may be divided into four general 
divisions. 3 


199 


I. The Introduction, § 140--144, 

Il. The Part of Aischines in getting up the war, § 145-159. 

III. The Part of Demosthenes in defending his country 
against it, by the Theban Alliance, § 160-247. 
IV. The Judgment of the People after the war upon the 
conduct of Demosthenes, §248-290. 


§ 140-144, Inrropuctioy. 


"Ag οὖν οὐδ᾽ ---κακόν; Did he then say nothing—as 
he then proposed nothing—when he could work you harm ? 
that is, as he proposed no decree, small or great for you, so, did 
he say nothing against you, when he had a chance to do you 
hurt? The contrast was brought out by the mode of utterance. 
“ ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἔγραφεν, ut inserta παρενθέτως, quod vocis inflexio, 
cum Demosthenes oraret, satis docuit, sola per se intelligenda, 
nec referenda sunt ad ea que continuo sequuntur, Ad ἔγραφεν 
subaudias τότε. SoHAEFER. οὐ μὲν οὖν, nay, it was not 
possible for another to speak. §130, Note. ἐπέθηκε τέλος, 
which gave the finishing stroke to all his former deeds. τῶν 
Ἀμφισσέων, genitive of the object: concerning the Am- 
phisseans. τό, referring to the preceding sentence; the mat- 
ter is not of such a nature; it can not be perverted. ἐν ἐ- 
weu, wash out. 


“ Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood 
Clean from my hand ?” 


Lord Brougham unnecessarily changes the figure; ‘ never 
will you be able to expiate that passage of your life.” οὐχ 
οὕτω πολλὰ égeis, not so many things will you speak ; 
that is, as to accomplish it: not, however much you may 
8141 say. ἀνόνητον, insensible to any good. ὅτε 

* κα ὶ γράμματ᾽ ἔχ ων, although both having; the 
8149 participle standing in an adyersative relation to the 

* finite verb. ἐν τῷ δημοσίῳ, inthe Record-office, 
“in Tabulario, non, in Atrario.” Scuarrer. ἐλάττων, 
We find a similar thought in the περὶ παραπρεσβείας. “ Let 
none of you, Judges, looking upon the magnitude of the trans- 
actions, suppose that the charges and the crimes are greater 
than his reputation”—welfous τὴς τούτου dd5ys—; that is, be- 


cae < » {:-- 


200 


yond his reputed power. 882, τὸν γὰρ ἐν ᾿μφίσση 
πόλεμον, δι’ ὅν bis ᾿Ελάτειαν, is an hexameter, 
5148 and was not unnoticed by the ancients. Lonerni Fragm. 

᾿ III, 4. Crozro’s Orator. Ch. 56. ὃς refers to πόλεμον. 
SCHAEFER. καὶ πάντων-- κακῶν, and the one man 
guilty of all our calamities. §73. ἐκ παρακλήσεως. 
παρακαλεῖσθαν is to summons one’s friends and followers to give 
aid and countenance in a trial, or in the Assembly. Hence, 
some sitting together on summons, or from preconcert; that is, 
the Macedonian faction. δεινότης, “calliditas,” ScHAEFER ; 
“ craftiness,”. KenNeEDy. 


The topic of Exaggeration—of setting forth an act or event 
as greatly above or below the ordinary standard of such acts 
The topic of and events—is a common topic in oratory. The 
Exaggeration. nresent example is worthy of study. The object of 
the orator is, to show the enormity of the crime which Aischi- 
nes had committed, and hence, incidentally to conciliate the 
favor of the audience to himself as a wise statesman and a true 
patriot. This is done by a series of topics judiciously selected 
and arranged. The first contrasts this act with other acts of 
éschines. As to his other acts, the state was able, as it seems, 
to bear them,—they were not fatal—and he himself to escape 
detection as their author, but this act consummates all his 
former perfidies and reveals his treachery so manifestly that it 
can no longer be concealed. Here, the orator pauses, and, as 
if impelled by the magnitude of the charge, invokes the inter- 
position of the gods. Then follows an explanation of the reason 
of this earnest prayer—that the crime was so enormous he 
feared lest Aischines might be thought too insignificant a per- 
son to have wrought it. And, finally, he paints the scene in 
the assembly, when he cries out—* You bring a war into Attica, 
Akschines, an Amphictyonic war”—and then by a most appro- 
priate transition passes to the next subject. It may be re- 
marked, also, that the orator with dramatic art keeps back the 
specific charge to the end, merely shadowing it forth at the 
outset, as something relating to the Amphisseans. 


201 


8 145-169. ΟὈΝΡΌΟΥ or Δ ἸΒΟΗΙΝΕῈΒ IN GETTING UP THE 
AMPHISSEAN WAR. : 


The topics, without any formal distinction, are as. follows : 
Interest of Philip in an Amphictyonic war; Employment of 
Aischines ; Proceedings of Aischines; Proceedings of the Am- 
phictyons, and the events of the war to the seizure of Elatea ; 
Documentary evidence ; Conclusion of the subject. 

§ 145-147. Ivrerest or Putte ΙΝ AN AMPHICTYONIC WAR, 
For an account of the Amphissean war, see Hist. Sketch, § X VIII. 
For an account of the Amphictyonic League, ἃ XII1, 46. τοῦ 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς πολέμου, the Byzantine war, of which the 
orator has already spoken, § 87-94. ἀπαλλαγή, escape; 
that is, from the war, not, “from the contracted theater of his 
country,” as Champlin supposes. τῶν ληστῶν, neither 
** pirates,” nor “ robbers,” but, irregular troops, who annoyed 
the enemy by sudden incursions here and there by the aid of 
the fleet, plundering and spoiling the country. Demosthenes 
in the First Philippic recommends the Athenians to carry on 
the war in this manner—Ayotetery ἀνάγκη καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ 
τοῦ πολέμου χρῆσθαν. §23. <A fine illustration of Anoreder is 
found in a passage of Livy, quoted by Sauppe; (Veientes) in 
fines Romanorum excucurrerunt, populandi magis quam justi 
more belli. Itaque non castris positis, non expectato hostium 
exercitu, raptam ex agris preedam portantes Veios rediere. Lib. 
1,15. Here, too, Demosthenes distinguishes between the evils 
inflicted’ by this kind of warfare, and the war itself, that is, 
the war carried on in the usual way in the Chersonese and at 
Byzantium. They were the Guerilla troops of modern times. . 
ἐκ τῆς χώρας, “coheret syntactice cum γιγγομένων, lo- 
gice cum ἐξήγετο. Plena enim locutio hee est; otre γὰρ 
ἐξήγετο τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ γιγνομένων ἐκ τῆς χώρας ovdér.’’ 
ScHAEFER. αὐτῷ, “cohzeret cum ἐξήγετο et εἰσήγετο." REISKE. 
μήτε Θετταλῶν--- δινέντων, declares a fact, not makes 
a supposition ; since neither the Thessalians followed him, nor 
the Thebans gave him a passage.” Burrmann, Gr. ὃ 148, 2, ἢ. 
Notel. αὐτῇ τῆ pioer—éixzatégors, the nature of 
the country and of the forces belonging to each. Notwith- 
standing the superiority of his army, Philip could not reach 


202 


Attica by land on account of the Thessalians and Thebans, nor 
by sea on account of the Athenian fleet, from which at the 
same time he suffered much harm and annoyance. ἐὰ» ὃ ἐ--- 
λαβών, but if taking advantage of the occasions [of war] 
common to them, he should be chosen leader, he hoped easily to 
cheat the one, and persuade the other [into it]; that is, if he 
could get up a war in which they should have a common inter- 
est, he thought he could bring them into it. πρόφασες, 
“modo, causa vera; modo, pretextus vanus; modo, occasio ; 
seepe tam dubie usurpa‘us, ut vim ejus definire difficile sit.” 
ΒΕΙΒΚΕ. τὰ μὲν παρακρούσεσθαυν, τὰ δὲ πείσ - 
ety, “hoc Thessalos spectat, illud Thebanos.” Dissen. πόλε- 
μον ποιῆσαν τοῖς ᾿ἀμφικτύοσι, to make a war, 
not against, but, for the Amphictyons, that is, for them to carry 
on. “ Bellum excitare Amphictyonibus gerendum.” DissEn. 
καὶ περὶ τὴν Πυλαίαν ταραχήν, and a disturbance 
in the synod. megimin. § 96, Note. ἡ πυλαία is the synod 
itself, as well as the place of holding it. eis ταῦτ᾽, for 
these, or with reference to these ; that is, to settle the difficulty. 
8. 148. EmpLoyment or Aiscuines, καὶ πάντας φυλάξ. 
δσθαν, and all be on guard. εὐπόρως λήσευν, he 
thought easily to escape notice ; or, that the scheme,—t0 πρᾶγμα 
—would escape notice. §149-150. Procerptines or Atscni- 
NES. πδριελθεῖν, to survey the country; “ circuire ad 
jines determinandos.” Dissen. σφῶν αὐτῶν οὖσαν, as 
being their own. τῶν Δοκρῶν ἐπαγόντων. See Aschi- 
nes, §116. ἐπάγειν δίκην, tobringasuit. οὐδ᾽ ἃ, “ex 
antecedentibus simpliciter ἐπαγόντων supple.” DissEn. προσ- 
καλέσασθανυ, to summon, which was to be done in the 
presence of witnesses (xAijroges), ἐκλήτευσεν, who served 
the summons? κλητεύευν is to perform the legal summons, that 
is, in the presence of χλήτορες, ἐπὶ ποίας ἀρχῆς, ** quo 
archonte, hoc est, quo anno?” ReiskE. *até yo, simply, 
you make use of. §151-153. ProcrEpines oF tHE AMPHIC- 
TYONS, AND EVENTS OF THE WAR TO THE SEIZURE OF ELaTma. 
κατὰ τὴν ὑφήγησιν. ὕὑὅφηγεϊῖσθαν, to lead the way; 
hence, here, in accordance with the lead which this man gave, 
or, as we may say, under the lead. προσπεσόντες --- 
ἅπαντας, the Locrians falling upon them slew almost the 
whole with their javelins—but took some of the Hieromnemones 


208 


prisoners. They routed the promiscuous crowd with great 
slaughter with their javelins at a distance, and took a few pris- 
oners in the retreat. ἅπαξ ---αὐ once. ἐταράχθη, was 
tumultuously excited. “Bellum cum turba commotum est.” 
Bremi. αὐτῶν τῶν ᾿μφυικτυόνων, of Amphictyons 
only. ἤγαγε, became leader; that is, commander-in-chief 
of the war. The army was not yet raised. of μὲν οὐκ 
4400, that is, the Thebans and Athenians. δὶς τὴν ἐπ ι- 
ovgav—mnbhect, the trained and veteran traitors among 
the Thessalians and in the other states, at the following con- 
gress transferred the business at once to Philip as leader. 
ἦγον, “subaudias τὸ πρᾶγμα. Supra p.125, 20, of μὲν ἐφ’ 
ὑμᾶς ἦγον τὰ πράγματα, of δ᾽ ἐπὶ Diunnoy,.” SCHAEFER, ταῦτα, 
that is, contributing and supporting mercenaries. ἐἔρρῶσθαν 
φράσας πολλά, bidding a “long farewell.” viv ὃ ἐ--- 
éxetvov, but as it was—viv δέ, corresponding to δὲ uéy— 
they restrained him at least from the sudden onset—the one 
just supposed ;—ye limiting the assertion, because they were not 
able finally to restrain him. «ita μέντοι---δὶ ἐμέ, then, 
however, and as far as was possible for one man—even by me. 
ταράξασα ἔδωκε, “has stirred up with impunity.” Kun- 
NEDY. §154-157. Documents, κοιγά-- προσδποιεῖτο, 
but pretended to do what was of common interest, and had 
been decided by the Amphictyons. ὃ 158-159. Conc.usion, 
dbp’ ἑἕνός---ἀνθρώπου, Philip. ὁ παρασχών, not gen- 
eral, but personal; Aischines. πολύ te σκότος, in the 
language of Scripture, ‘a thick darkness.” 


With regard to this section, we need make no remarks, ex- 
cept on the statement, § 143-148, in which the orator sets forth: 
the motives Philip had in getting up an Amphictyonic war, 
and in employing an Athenian to doit. This is the second 
time the orator has made use of the διήγησις ἀποδεικτική, or 
Argumentative Narrative. The object of the first was to state 
the circumstances which led the Athenians to make the first 
Peace, of 346, B. C., § 18-20. The present is, also, a statement 
of facts and motives, but they are so connected together in the 
strictest logical sequence, without a superfluous sentence, and 
expressed with such precision and force, without a superfluous 


204 


word, that an analysis would be longer than the statement itself. 
It will be sufficient to recommend this as well as the former 
one, as oratorical studies, 


§ 160-247. Conpuct or DrMosTHENES IN DEFENDING HIS 
COUNTRY AGAINST THE AMPHISSEAN WAR, THROUGH THE 
THEBAN ALLIANCE. 


As the Amphissean war was the great crime of Aischines 
against his country, so the Theban Alliance was the great 
achievement of Demosthenes for it. The topics in this portion 
of the oration have sole reference to it, and to the combined 
efforts of Athens and Thebes under it. They are as follows: 

I. The Relation of Athens and Thebes to each other at the 
time of the Seizure of Elatea. § 160-167. 

II. The Tumult at Athens on the seizure of Elatea. §168- 


- 859. 


III. Speech of Demosthenes on the occasion, and his Decree. 
§ 174-187. | 

IV. Remarks preliminary to a consideration of the Results of 
the Measures proposed at that time by Demosthenes. ὃ 189-- 
210. 

VY. Narrative of Events, ending with the battle of Cheronea. 
— §$ 211-247, | : 


§ 160-167. Tue Revarion or AtHeNs anp THEBES TO EACH 
OTHER AT THE TIME OF THE SEIZURE OF ELATEA. 


§ 160. ΤἈΑΝδιτιον..-συμβέβη κε, as if in the natural 
course of things. τὰ ἔργα τῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν πόνων, 
‘‘the toil of exertions in your behalf.” ἸἹΚΈΝΝ ΡΥ. “ Poterat 
brevius scribere τοὺς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν πόνους ; sed maluit illo modo ob 
solennem oppositionem τῶν ἔργων et τῶν λόγων." ScHAEFER, 
αὐτῶν, genitive of the object, concerning them. See §140, 
Note. §161-167. Srarement—i7d τῶν τὰ Φιλίππου 
φρονούντων, by those favoring the interests of Philip. τά 
τινος φρονεῖν is to think the thoughts of another, to be like- 
minded, of his party. See 8177. παῤ ἑκατέροις, “apud 
ulrosque seorsim, ut mox ἀμφοτέροις utrisque simul.” Dissen. 
ταύτην τὴν φιλίαν, between the Athenians and Thebans, 


205 


ἑαυτοῖς = ἀλλήλους, ScHAEFER. οὕς, the pronouns are con- 
strued with the participles, not with the verbs, as bringing out 
the contrast better between ζῶντας μὲν κολακεύων and τεθνεώτων 
δὲ κατηγορῶν. αἰσθάνεν, “recte ex codice Κ΄, pro αἰσχύνη 
restitutum. Non impudentiam notat Aischinis sed absurdita- 
tem, ut ex sequentibus verbis apparet.” W.Drinporr. tov ἐν. 
᾿μφίσση πόλεμον ---ἔχθραν, The equipoise of the 
clauses of this sentence is perfect; τὸν ἐν “Augloon πόλεμον 
being balanced by τὴν πρὸς Θηβαίους ἔχθραν, τούτου by τῶν 
ἄλλων, and πονήσαντος by συμσπεραναμένων, while, at the same 
time they are arranged on the principle of the chiasmus, to do 
which μὲν is thrown out of its proper position after ποιήσαντος. 
897, Note. τὴν πρὸς Θηβαίους ἔχθραν, referring 
to the national hatred towards the Thebans. οὕτω μέχρι 
tdéogw. “ οὕτω referendum ad πόρρω. Passim οὕτω a sua voce 
dirimitur, alia interserté. οὕτως ἐπεπείσμην μέγαν. ὃ 220.” 
Scuarrer. The separation is for emphasis, the unimportant 
word being interposed. 


§ 168-173. Tue Tumutr at ATHENS ON THE SEIZURE OF 
ELATEA. 


$168. Inrropuction—d+& τούτων, Aschines and his 
partisans. τὴν ddvamury, that is, the force before men- 
tioned as having been assembled. §152. τὴν “Eddtevay 
κατέλαβεν. Demosthenes has already mentioned the seiz- 
ure of Elatea, §152, but leaving Philip, as it were, in posses- 
sion, although with genuine art he anticipates, by way of relief, 
the results of the alliance he brought about between Athens 
and Thebes, by which the immediate danger was averted, he 
proceeded to speak of the relations existing between Thebes and 
Athens, and of the necessity of cooperating against Philip. He 
now returns to the seizure of that city, and first speaks of the 
consternation it produced in Athens. ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἂἄν-- τῶν 
Θηβαίων, as if, come what might, you and the Thebans 
could never agree; “ could never again unite ;’ Kennepy, but 
ἔτι points out the continuance of their estrangement: they would 
still continue in not uniting. μικρὰ —“pauca.” ScHarrEr, 
§ 34, Note. αὐτὰ tévayxardtata. See 8126, Note. 
§ 169-173, SrarEMment.—Eoméga μὲν γὰρ ἦν, ἧκε δ᾽. 

18" 


206 


There is a slight contrast. The time is not mentioned merely 
to denote that fact, but also to show the urgency of the case. 
Notwithstanding it was evening, a person came announcing. 
But the shade of the thought can not be well’given in English, 
—we may adopt Lord Brougham’s translation as the best. It 
was evening. ἀγγέλλων τις, there came one announcing ; 
not a formal messenger. τούς τ᾽ ἐκ---5Ἴ᾿ἰ ξ εῖργον. “Re- 
solve: τούς τ᾽ ἐν ταῖς σκηναῖς ταῖς κατὰ ἀγορὰν ἐξεῖργον ἐξ αὐτῶν)" 
Scuarrmr. See§145, Note. σκην ὦν, booths in the market, 
with wicker work coverings, (γέρρα) ἐνεπίμπρασαν, “Sus- 
picor incendium fuisse loco φρυκτωρίας, ut in tanto tumultu 
omnes e demis in urbem confluerent.” ScnazFER. τῆ ὕστε- 
θαίᾳ, supply, ἡμέρᾳφ. ἅμα tH ἡμέρᾳ, as soon as it was 
day; at dawn. ἄνω, in Pnyce. ScuamreR, πάντες ἂν 
ὑμεῖς, all then present. of τρια κόσιονυ, “trecenti ditis- 
simi secundum symmorias Nausinici.” Dissmn. See Boeckh Pub. 
Econ. of Athens, p.527,523. τοὺς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα, 
those being both of these. Compare Xenophon: τίς οὐκ ἂν 
ὁμολογήσειεν αὐτὸν βούλεσθαν μήτ᾽ ἠλίθιον μήτ᾽ ἀλαζόνα φαίνεσθαν 
τοῖς συνοῦσιν, ἐδόκεν δ᾽ ἂν ἀμφότερα ταῦτα si—B.1. C. 1, ὃ δ. 
See, also, ὥσπερ τἄλλα πάντα. 8818. μετὰ ταῦτα, After 
the battle of Cheronea, according to Westermann, who refers to 
§ 248, 312; but according to Schaefer, after the seizure of Ela- 
tea. πόρρωθεν, “longo ex tempore.” Disszen. οὗτος, 
“scilicet quem ὁ καιρὸς ἐκάλει. SCHAEFER. ἐγώ, notice the po- 
sition of this word: there appeared now such a man on that 
day—I—. πολλῷ πρὸς τὰ λοιπά---ὰἀἐμπευιρότερου, 
you may become much better experienced for the future in every 
kind of policy. 


The description of the consternation at Athens, on the news 
of the seizure of Elatea, excels any thing of the kind to be 
found in oratory. It presents the scene to the eye like a paint- 
ing, and calls forth all the feelings which must have been exci- 
ted by the reality itself. 

We may specify three excellencies. 1. The selection of in- 
dividual circumstances, Few as these are, they are such as set 
forth the whole scene: the evening, the chance individual, not 
a formal messenger, who brought the news, the Prytanes start- 
ing up and leaving their meal half eaten. the earlv dawn of the 


207 


next day, and more than all, the significant fact, that the whole 
people were seated in the Pnyx, before the Senate had delibera- 
ted and resolved ; then, finally, the formal entrance of the Sen- 
ate, and the silence of the assembly, when the herald cries, 
“who will speak ?”—till at length Demosthenes breaks that 
silence, very thing in the description, it is noticeable, is indi- 
vidual, nothing general; and each individual circumstance, 
significant of consternation and dismay. | 

2. The Arrangement of the circumstances. Demosthenes 
had shown himself as the only statesman in Athens adequate 
to that emergency. To set forth, therefore, that individual act 
of statesmanship was most important to his case. What gave 
peculiarity to it was the greatness and immediateness of the 
danger, on the one hand, and, on the other, the fact, that he 
alone, in the despair and silence of all others, gave the counsel 
which caused the danger to pass away, as he says, like a cloud. 
Hence, first, the picture of tumultuous alarm; then, next, of 
silent despair. And as the first was drawn in detail, so, also, 
the latter. The fact, that all were present who might have been 
expected to speak; the fact that of those present, there was 
none but would have spoken, if they had known what counsel 
- to give; the fact that the occasion demanded not the rich and 
the patriotic citizen, but the experienced and wise counsellor—_ 
these facts are dwelt upon in as many consecutive sentences 
and repeated with all the skill of consummate art till at length 
—such is the feeling of despair—we welcome the words, “ Now 
then, there appeared such a man on that day—I—.” 

3. The negative merit, that the description no where passes 
beyond the bounds of oratory into the province of poetry. 
Although the whole is as beautiful as any poetry can be, still 
there is not a sentence, not a word, which appears to have been 
introduced merely for the sake of making a beautiful picture ; 
nothing to divert the mind from the scene itself; thus, nothing 
to interfere with the feelings which would naturally arise on 
such an occasion. ‘The words of the orator produce their effect 
without drawing any attention to themselves. And it is a sure 
test of the highest oratory that it is never consciously known 
to be such at the moment of its greatest triumphs. 

This kind of description was treated of by the ancient Rheto- © 
ricians. Celsus calls it ὑποτύπωσιες, 1. 6. proposita quedam 


208 


forma rerum ita expressa verbis, ut cerni potius videatur quam 
audiri. The Auctor ad Herenn. calls it Demonstratio, which 
is, “cum ita res verbis exprimitur ut geri negotium, et res 
ante oculos esse videatur. Lib. rv. Ch. 55. Cicero, in the De 
Oratore Lib. 11. 58, calls it Sub oculos subjectio. Cicero’s ora- 
tions abound in examples. But perhaps no better example can 
be alleged for comparison than Webster’s description, in the 
trial of the Knapps, of the murder of their victim. 


_ §174-187. Spzzcu or Demosruenszs, anp nis Dzcres. 


ὑπαρχόντων Θηβαέων Φιλίππῳ. ὑἡἧπάρχειν τινε, 
is to be favorable to any one, Passow, a meaning not in 
Liddell and Scott. See p. 358. It is worthy of notice how in 
the gradual improvement of the text the process has been to 
throw out words, which, though proper enough, may still be 
omitted, and the thought left equally clear and more forci- 
ble :—a process which every one may apply to his own style. 
The text formerly contained φίλων after “ελίππῳ. ηὐτρέπισ- 
ται, “gibt conciliavit.” Dissen. οὐδαμῶς wetoat δύ- 
vatat, he no longer hopes to persuade, ἐπᾶραι----πονῆσαν---πα- 
ταπλῆξαν, “pendent a remotiori βούλεται." ScHAEFER. αὐτῷ, 
The Greek is not only sparing in the use of pronouns, but can 
accommodate the pronoun to either of two constructions. Thus, 
here, it was at the option of the orator to employ αὐτόν with 
προσδεξαμένων, as Reiske prefers, or αὐτῷ with ἀνθεστηκότων, 
See §162, Note. Thus, we may translate; lest those yielding 
to him who had opposed, or, those yielding who had opposed him. 
πρὸς τῷ σκοπεῖν---γένησθε, be ready to consider, not 
to cavil at, what 1 say. “γίγνεσθαι πρὸς teve est, mente versart 
in aligua re.” Dissen. wetabéobart—OnfGaiwy», to turn 
about, and fear all for the Thebans, μεταθέσθαι, “dictum 
absolute.” Scuazrer, Ελευσῖνάδε. The route for an 
army was first on the sacred road to Eleusis, and thence north- 
west to Thebes. τοὺς ἐν ἡλεκίᾳ, that is, of the military 
age, which was from the nineteenth to the sixtieth year. 
goovotar τὰ ὑμέτερα. See 8161, Note. καὶ τοῦ 
πότε---τῆς ἐξόδου, and give them authority, with the 
strategi, to determine both as to the time when the embassy should 
set out, and as to the march of the troops. Retskz and ScHAEFER. 


209 


τοὐύτῳ---τὸν νοῦν, to this pay me strict atiention. Notice 
the diverse relations of the two datives. αἱσχρὸς γὰρ ὁ 
παυρός, the opportunity is dishonorable, that is, to avail our- 
selves of the opportunity. “ Yor at this time it would be shame- 
ful.” Lord Broucuam. ἃ βουλόμεθα---πράξωμεν, we 
shall both accomplish what we wish—we shall protect ourselves 
against Philip—and shall do it with an appearance worthy of 
the state; that is, while aiding the Thebans. *atatuysiv, 
but should it not happen to us to be successful; that is, if the 
Thebans should not receive our proposals and trust to us. 
The student can not fail to notice that this reported speech is 
in a much lower tone than the other parts of this oration. It 
was natural it should be so. For, neither was the orator in the 
same state of feeling as when it was delivered, nor was the 
audience listening to it as a speech addressed to them, but as a 
mere matter of information. In accommodating himself to 
these circumstances, the orator evinces his usual and almost 
infallible judgment—ov% εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα. The first 
rudiment of this sentence.we may perhaps find in the third 
Philippic; καὶ οὐ yedqer μὲν ταῦτα, τοῖς δ᾽ ἔργοις οὐ ποιεῖ---- 27, 
We quote from Lord Brougham: “The exquisite diction of 
this justly-celebrated passage is altogether inimitable in our 
language. The μέν and the δέ, the οὐκ and οὐδέ, are wholly 
Greek, and wholly untranslatable. We might come nearer the 
original indeed, than is done with ‘not only’ and ‘but,’ by 
using a double negative: thus, ‘I did not make a speech, and 
not make a motion; nor make a motion, and not go embassa- 
dor; nor go embassador, and not persuade the Thebans;’ but 
the double negative is always more or less repugnant to our 
idiom. Possibly this turn may reconcile it :—‘] was not the 
man to make a speech, and not carry a decree; nor to carry a 
decree, and not go embassador; nor to go embassador, and not 
convince the Theban people.’ If the sense be rendered by 
‘without, we are no nearer the original than by the course 
taken in the text ;”—which is as follows: “All assenting, no 
one saying one word to the contrary, not only did I make this 
speech, but I propoundeed a decree; not only did I propound 
a decree, but I went embassador; not only went I embassador, 
but I persuaded the Thebans.” This is perhaps the best trans- 
lation possible, and was not unlikely suggested by the imitation, 
18* 


210 


which Cicero attempted in his oration for Milo: “ Neque vero 
se populo solum sed etiam senatui commisit; neque senatul 
modo, sed etiam publicis presidiis et armis; neque lis tantum 
verum etiam ejus potestati cui senatus totam rempublicam, om- 
nem Italie pacem, cuncta populi Romani arma commiserat.” 
This sentence was the model for the climax with the ancient 
Rhetoricians. It will be sufficient to quote from Quinctilian. 
“ Gradatio que dicitur κλίμαξ, apertiorem habet artem et magis 
affectatam ideoque rarior esse debet.—Ejus exemplum ex Greeco 
notissimum transferatur : ‘non enim dixi quidem, sed non scrips! ; 
nec scripsi quidem, sed non obii legationem; nec obii quidem, 
sed non persuasi Thebanis.” (rx. 3, 55,)—a very jeyune trans- 
lation, it must be admitted, not to be compared with Lord 
Brougham’s.— While the clerk was preparing to read the de- 
cree, the orator as usual takes the opportunity to relieve the 
discussion, by sarcasm and retort on A’schines. καίτο ε--- 
ἐπέτριψας, alihough whom would you—Pothe-—I should 
consider you, and whom myself on that day to have been ?—sivae 
66—would you—in speaking it is not necessary to repeat the 
εἶναι O@—MYSELF, as you sneeringly and opprobiously say, a 
Batalus, but yourseLr no common hero, but one of those on the 
stage, a Cresphontes, or Creon, or him whom once in Colyttus,— 
Gnomaus—you murdered by your vile acting. κατ᾽ éxsivoy τὸν 
καιρόν, “alla rerum conditione.” SCHAEFER, 


§ 188-210. Remarks PreLIMINARY TO A CONSIDERATION OF 
THE ResuLts oF THE MEASURES PROPOSED BY DEMOSTHENES. 


The orator had already spoken of the political relations be- 
tween Athens and Thebes, and of the efforts of the Macedonian 
faction to cherish their national animosities ; of the consternation 
at Athens on the seizure of Elatea, and his counsel at the time 
to form an alliance with Thebes. The next step would have 
been to give an account of the negotiation. But, although the 
alliance was concluded, and the first efforts of the confederates 
were successful, the fatal battle of Cheronea disappointed all 
their hopes and destroyed the freedom of Greece. Before com- 
ing to speak of this, therefore, the orator wishes to secure the 
feelings of the audience on his side, so that they may contem- 
plate the transactions in the lofty spirit of their forefathers. It 


' 


211 


is the object of these preliminary remarks to arouse this spirit 
to its highest pitch. They proceed in the form of a climax, and 
may be thus arranged. 

I. No other course of policy was possible. 

(a) Because even now no one can point out any other course, 
with an appeal to Aischines to do it. § 188-191. 

(b) But we must judge of the aim of measures, not of their 
results ; hence, as no other course can be pointed out, his must 
be approved, though not successful. § 192-194. 

(c) But, though unsuccessful, the results were better than if 
the measures had not been adopted. §195. 

II. A personal appeal to Aischines, by which he is placed in 
the dilemma, that either he knew these measures would fail, in 
which case he should have proposed others, or he did not know 
it, in which case he has the same responsibility for his igno- 
rance as others. ὃ. 196-198. 

III. But even if all had foreknown the future, if it had been 
known that we should be defeated, we ought to have acted just 
as we did. § 199-210. 

§ 188-195. No oTHER COURSE POSSIBLE.—*aT&OTaOLS, 
“constitutio rerum antea turbatarum,” Dissen; settlement. 
ὑφηγμένων, misled.. “Inest notio doli mali.” Bremr ὑπὸ 
τούτων; by Alschines and his party. Goweg νέφος. 
No two words, perhaps, in classic literature have been more 
celebrated. "We may notice several things with respect to this 
figure. Jirst, it was unexpected. Although the first part of 
the sentence prepares the way, so that it does not appear like 
an after-thought, but is felt to be a living member, yet the sen- 
tence might-have ended with éxolyjoey, without a feeling of 
disappointment on the part of the hearer. Secondly, though 


beautiful, it was strictly appropriate ; presented naturally, nob ~» 
sought. Every hearer must have felt that it was used, not for” 
its beauty though beautiful, but because it expressed the thought 
with more truthfulness than any literal language. If we call 
to mind the consternation at Athens which the orator had just 
described—how bereft of counsel the entire Assembly—we shall 
see that the choice of the figure was absolutely perfect. Thirdly, 
we may notice the simplicity of the words. Lord Brougham’s 
criticisms on the manner in which these words have been trans- 
lated will best illustrate this point. “This passage, or rather 


212 


phrase, is celebrated, but not therefore the better rendered by 
translators. Dawson, ‘scattered and driven away like a cloud 
before the wind.’ Francis makes the phrase passive, passed 
‘away like a cloud, and was dissipated.’ Leland adds figures 
as well as words, and makes it passive also—‘ the danger which 
hung lowering over our state was in an instant dissipated like 
a cloud.’ Nothing can be worse. In rendering a passage, in 
composing which every syllable was weighed, the more literal 
we are, the better, surely.” ourthly, there is a peculiar 
rhythm, obvious to the ancient critic, and which, perhaps, 
may still be detected. To the ears of Longinus, the effect 
would have been much marred, as he informs us, by the substi- 
tution of either ὡς or dumegel for ὥσπερ. ἦν μέν. μὲν 18 
repeated below, ἦν μὲν οὖν, and has its correspondent particle 
in ἐγὼ δέ, τότε δεῖξαι. Τὶ should be remembered that 
none had ventured to give counsel in the time of peril but De- 
mosthenes. ὁ γὰρ σύμβουλος καὶ ὁ συκοφάντης. 
We have before seen that definition is one of the common topics 
of oratory. It is obvious that Demosthenes does not define 
these two characters, for the sake of communicating knowledge, 
but to enliven and enforce the thoughts. See §2, Note, and 
§ 123, also, p.600, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐοικότες, 
alike in nothing else. δίιδωσιν---τῷ βουλομὲν ῳ, makes 
himself responsible to those who trust him—whether he gives 
good counsel—to fortune—whether he uses her rightly—to 
emergencies—whether he takes them in season—to any one— 
who might demand an account for anything whatever. From 
Dissen. ὁ δὲ σιγήσας, not taken absolutely, which would 
require σιγῶν ἡνίκα δεῖ λέγειν, but personally, with reference to 
4ischines. See §159, and Note. 4» μὲν οὖν, Demosthe- 
nes first states the duty of the patriotic citizen; next, illustrates 


_ this position by the distinction between the statesman and the 


demagogue, and here returns to his original statement. 07289 
εἶπον, just above. é*sivog—Adywy, that, then, as I 
sad, was the time for the man having at least.a regard for the 
state and for just counsels. ἐγὼ δὲ---ποιοῦμαν. But 7 
go so far. ὅλως, altogether, in every case. ἐν ἤν, “subaudi- 
tur προαιρεῖσθαν, quod latet in sequente προδιλόμην." SCHAEFER. 
&duvxsiv, I confess myself guilty. “ ddixsiv sepe ponitur de 
rebus jam perfectis, ita tamen ut culpa etiam maneat.” Brent. 


218 


᾿δξώρακεν, now knows of. “In the perfect tense we often think 

less of the past action than of the state or condition which has 
resulted from that action.” Burrmann,. δεῖν ἐμὲ μὴ dae 
θεῖν, ought not to have escaped me. ἐπευδὴ δ᾽ οὐ τότε, 
“subaudi ἔδειξας." Ruiskn. λόγος, plan or counsel; “rva- 
tio,” “via,” “modus agendi.” Reiske. πρᾶξις, “practical 
measure.” Reviewer of Lord BrovcHam. 

§ 192-194, ἀλλά. The orator had been asking if a better 
course of policy could be pointed out even now; but here he 
pauses—such a request is to no purpose—and passes to an- 
other topic. ἀφεῖται, “given up.” Kennepy. παρῆν, 
“subaudi παρεῖναι." SonarreR. 6 δαίμων, “ig. 6 θεός," 
Scuarrer. See below, ἐν τῷ θεῷ. ἡ δὲ προαίρεσις 
αὐτή, “ipsa per se spectata.” Dissen. κρατῆσαι. “Vide 
ut nunc demum, postquam per totum antecedentem locum in- 
directe locutus est, triste verbum ipsum eloquatur, multis verbis 
ante preparatum, et nunc ipsum verissima γνώμῃ premissa.” 
Dissen. κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπινον λογισμόν, “within,” to 
use Mr. Canning’s words on a similar subject, the failure of the 
Walcheren expedition, “within mortal foresight.” ὑπὲρ δύ- 
γαμυν, beyond my strength καὶ τότ᾽ ἤδη κατηγόθρενυ 
μου, then αἱ length accuse me; “et tum demum me accusa.” 
Reisxke. ὁ συμβὰς σκηπτός, the hurricane which hap- 
pened ; used with reference to τῆς vavayias. The orator has 
before compared what happened to a torrent, χειμάρρους, ὃ 158, 
as he does afterwards to a deluge, κατακλυσμός, 8214. τί χρὴ 
movetv; what is it necessary todo? that is, what view now 
to take of it? “Omissa autem est oratoris sibi ipsi responsio, 
quam facile suppleas fere hoc modo: σιγᾷν χρὴ καὶ μὴ καταγο- 
ρεῖν, Scuazrer. Perhaps, better in the form of a question ;— 
is it to find fault? ὥσπερ ἂν et tig—aitroto, asf 
a ship-owner, having done everything for safety, and provided 
the vessel with all those things by which he supposed it would be 
preserved, but having afterwards encountered a tempest, and his 
rigging laboring or being utterly destroyed,—some one should 
accuse of the shipwreck. The γαύκληρος is the ship-owner who 
transports freight for pay ; ts, the person who sends the freight, 
and who in case of loss or damage, might in some circumstan- 
ces, have a legal claim upon the ship-owner. χρησάμενον, 
construed with ναύκληρον. “ Non absimile est hinc significatui, 


214 


cum v. g. nauta dicitur χρῆσθαν χειμῶνι." Vig. p. 325, with a 
reference to the present passage. “ Dein cum tempestate conflic- 
tatus.” Lord Brougham and his Reviewer refer χρησάμενον to 
πλοῖον; Pabst to ναύκληρον, but αὐτῷ to πλοῖον ; Kennedy, both 
to γαύκληρον, which is to be preferred. δἶτα. In English, we 
should perhaps use an adversative particle in addition to εἶτα, 
although there is no real opposition between being prepared for 
a tempest, and merely encountering it. otte τῆς τύχης 
κύριος ἦν, connected with ἐκυβέρνων, although Lord Brough- 
am connects it with ἐστρατήγουν. 

§195. ἐκεῖνος, Philip. Doprez. πάσας ἀφῆκε po- 
vas, “nihil sibi reliquit indictum,” Reiske ; with reference to 
the efforts which, through his embassadors and orators, Philip 
made at that time to unite the Thebans with himself. “ He used 
every effort of persuasion.” KENNEDY. πόυ τῆς χώρας, 
somewhere in the country; that is, of Attica. ἄρ᾽ οἷσ 0’— 
κατηγορεῖς, Dost thou know as things now are—viv μὲν 
having its opposite in τότε 0’, the contrast being between the 
course which was followed and that which might have been—one 
and two and three days have given us the opportunity to stand 
up, to come together, to take breath—many things pertaining to 
the safety of the βἰαΐο.------πολλὰ takes up and embraces the whole, 
shutting up the particulars with a general remark ; and it would 
be best perhaps to repeat the verb with it, “have given,”—but 
im the other case—térte 0’,—the result being suppressed, with an 
apology for its suppression—but it 2s not proper to speak of those 
things which did not make themselves felt—meigav ἔδωκε, gave a 
trial, that is, of themselves—through the favor of some one of 
the gods, and the protection of the city with this alliance you are 
attacking. The respite of a few days after the battle of Chero- 
nea was of the utmost importance, and this could not have been 
secured without the Theban alliance, through which the battle 
was fought three days march from Attica. 

§ 196-198. Persona ApPpEAL.—t& πολλά, many as they 
are. “ Hee tota, quamvis tam copiosa, oratio ad vos directa est.” 
Reiske, πδριδστηκότας. Trials were often attended by 
large audiences. The δικαστήριον was surrounded by a bar or 
railing (δρυφάκτῷ) which was entered by a latticed gate (xvy- 
κλίδι.) ταῦτα, this ignorance of the future of which I just 
spoke. τῆ πόλει, “pendet a δυσμενέστατος." “ Libri non- 


215 

nulli ποιήσειε τῇ πόλει. Optativus glossatori debetur apte explenti 
constructionem ellipticam.” ‘ScuarFeR. ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβᾶ- 
σον, on the occurrence of the evenis. of καθάπαξ ἐχθροί, 
thorough-going enemies ; that is, enemies in every thing. Com- 
pare p. 377: οὕτω καθάπαξ πέπρακεν ἑαυτόν, he sold himself so 
entirely, καίτοι. ὅτῳ-- ἀπέκειτο, although to whomso- 
ever the misfortunes of the Grecks are reserved to gain glory 
from them—éivevdoxvustv. “Subaudi αὐτοῖς, ut famam ex 
illis aucuparetur.” Scuanrer. wodttetar. This isa form of 
the sentence, technically called by the ancient critics, ἀντέστρο- 
gi. For other examples in this oration, see $117,274. Dissen 
quotes a fine example from Cicero: “Doletis tres exercitus 
populi Romani interfectos, interfecit Antonius. Desideratis cla- 
rissimos cives, eos quoque eripuit vobis Antonius. Auctoritas 
hujus ordinis afflicta est, afflixit Antonius.” Phil. I]. τὰ @77- 
ματα καὶ τὰ σπάσματα, “fractures and sprains.” KeEn- 
wepy. See Olyn. II, § 21, for another application of this com- 
parison. tO σῶμα, the subject of λάβη; Dissen, but Pabst 
in his German translation makes τὸ κακόν the subject. 

§ 199-210. Tue Porigg nucussary.——viv μέν γε--τῶν 
πραγμάτων, As things now are—viv μέν, having its corres- 
pondence in τότε 0’—+the state appears to be merely—ye—unsuc- 
cessful in its affairs, τότε δ᾽ --ΟΑὀἰτίαν, but in the other ease, 
being worthy to rule over the others, then renouncing this, it 
would have had the blame of betraying all to Philip. τίς οὐκὶ 
κατέπτυσεν ἂν σοῦ. We naturally expect τῆς πόλεως, 
which had been the subject of discourse, but the orator with great 
skill substitutes A’schines, as if he alone were capable of such 
meanness of conduct... μὴ γὰρ τῆς πόλεώς ye μηδ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 
for not upon the state at least, nor upon me. The supposition 
was not to be made of the state or of himself—and therefore 
there was no danger of such a disgrace being cast upon them. 
“Subaudiendum autem καταπτύσειξ,." SCHAEFER. δὲ τὰ μὲν 
᾿ φράγματ᾽ ---σαν πεποιημένον. This sentence is divi- 
ded into two parts by τὰ μέν and τὸν δέ, and then the first part 
subdivided, according to Westermann, with a suppressed μέν, 
to which δέ after ἡγεμών corresponds, though the opposition is 
very slight and would be expressed by the tone, it being merely 
between the things and the person, as in § 25, πολλῶν μὲν χρη- 
μάτων πολλῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν. But Schaefer rejects the δέ, 


210 


though without manuscript authority, and connects the clause 
to the preceding as a mere continiation of the thought. So, 
also, Dissen, Kennedy, Brougham, and in general the transla- 
tions, τοῦτ᾽. ἂν ἀσμένως --προεστάναιν. Reiske 
finds much fault with this sentence, and says the hunting after 
participial constructions undonsciously involves the Greeks in 
ridiculous absurdities. But Schaefer thinks Demosthenes did 
not need to be taught by Reiske how to write Greek. He says 
the construction of the words does not differ from this: “τὸ 
κδλενόμενον ποιούση καὶ ἐώση ἕτερον τῶν “Ελλήνων προεστάναν 
ὅ τι βούλεταν λαβεῖν καὶ τὰ ἑαυτῆς 2 ἔχεῖν. Hoc schema metathesm 
Technici appellant. Scuarrer. πκυγνδυνδύου σα, construed 
with διατετέλεκε. It always continued encountering danger in 
contending.— tov, supply θάνατον, his destined lot. Both ex- 
pressions refer to the same thought, and are only an example 
of oratorical amplification ; “appointed or natural end,” Kn- 
NEDY ; “awaits his destined end in the course of nature,” Lord 
BrovucHaM. 

§ 206-210. δὲ μέν---νῦν δ᾽; ἐγὼ wév-—ottos δέ. 
Observe the contrasts, between what,be had not done, and what 
he did do, and then between what he did and what Aschines 
did. τῆς μέντον διακονίας, the administration, which 
is contrasted with τὰς προαιρέσεις, and φρόνημα. The con- 
trast is indicated by the μέντοι, and would be expressed by 
the tone, the corresponding μέν being, according to Wester- 
mann, suppressed. See § 201, Note. τῶν ὅλων, the whole; 
both the policy and the administration, Demosthenes gives all 
the credit to the state. It was its spirit which led to the adop- 
tion of the measures against Philip; he claimed for himself 
merely a share in the execution of them. But A‘schines, by 
attacking the whole, both the measures and the execution of 
them, in his eagerness to strip me of a temporary honor, is in 
reality taking away your praises for all coming time. The 
glory of Demosthenes as merely executing what they willed 
was temporary ; theirs, eternal. Lord Brougham has overlooked 
this distinction, which is one of the finest strokes in this fine 
passage: “ But Aschines impeaching my whole conduct.” He 
has made a still greater mistake in the opening sentence: 
“ there lives not a man who could jusily blame me,” the mean- 
ing being directly the opposite; there is none who might not 
justly blame me. tovdt, Ctesiphon. ἔπειτ᾽ ---δἶδ δδει. 


217 


“schines in several parts of his oration had brought forward 
the distinguished heroes of Greece, to disparage Demosthenes 
by the contrast. Thus, he asks, “which seems to you the bet- 
ter man, Themistocles, who commanded when you conquered _ 
the Persians at Salamis, or Demosthenes, who fled the ranks ? 
Miltiades, who conquered the Barbarians at Marathon, or this 
man?” Demosthenes takes advantage of the impression just 
produced, to make a short and contemptuous reference to these 
contrasts. And you then—inewt’—thou wretched scribbler, with 
a design to strip me of honor and favor with these, TALKED ABOUT 
trophies and battles and ancient deeds—of which what one does 
this present trial call for ?2—but me, thou third-rate actor—the 
counsellor to the state, concerning its highest honers,—we must 
not overlook the juxtaposition of τρυταγωνιστά and τὸν σύμβου- 
dov—inspired with the spirit of what one did it become me to 
ascend the Bema? No translation has equalled, or can equal, 
the force of the original sentence. Both Brougham and Ken- 
nedy are tame in the comparison. But the sentence, even in a 
translation, must be declaimed, not read. The orator seems to 
have commenced it with agdesign to draw a direct contrast be- 
tween Aischines and himself; od μέν----ἐγὼ dé—“ you talked 
about trophies and fights and ancient deeds, but I spoke from 
the Bema in the very spirit of those heroes who performed 
them ;” but, to avoid the appearance of arrogance, he changes 
the structure, and asks with whose spirit, as counsellor of the 
state, he should have been animated? The contrasts are many 
and sharp. -Adschines is a miserable scribbler, Demosthenes, a 
counsellor of state; Aischines mounted the Bema merely to 
injure a personal enemy, Demosthenes, to give counsel to his 
country ; Aischines spoke about honorable deeds, Demosthenes 
did them. If we conceive of these points as uttered, by the ora- 
tor, we shall see that this sentence was not unworthy of the 
place which it occupies. ὧν tlyog—-odtoal, “quibus 
rebus profecto opus non in hac causa, cum nihil actum sit quod 
indignum majoribus.” Dissen. ἐπεὶ, introduces the reason 
why he would have been justly slain, if he had not acted up to 
the spirit of their ancestors. τὰἀ---συμβόλαινα, the trans- 
actions of daily life. ἐπὶ τῶν---σκοποῦντας, examin- 
eng according to particular laws and facts. προαιρέσεις, 
counsels. “ Consilia, non, res gestas.” Dissen. The orator pur- 
19 


218 


posely keeps up the distinction with which he started ; τὴν προ» 
αἰρεσίν μου oxdmer τῆς πολιτείας, μὴ τὰ συμβάντα συκοφάντει. 
8102. ἀξιώματα, “»γαοίαγα facta.” Dissen, τῆ βακ- 
τηρίᾳ καὶ τῷ συμβόλῳ. “To discharge the judicial 
business of Athens, there were annually chosen by lot, in equal 
portions out of the ten tribes, six thousand citizens. This num- 
ber was divided into ten equal sections of five hundred each, 
leaving one thousand to supply vacancies. Now, besides the 
Heliza, there were nine other courts in Athens. Over the 
court rooms of the ten courts were the ten first letters of the 
alphabet. (From the Reviewer of Lord Brougham. The remain- 
der from Mitchell’s note to the Wasps of Aristophanes, v. 918.) 
Ten tablets bearing the same ten letters were thrown into a 
vessel ; section A, or its representative, dipped into the vessel, 
and drew up, it might be, the letter K. That letter determined 
the court to which the judicial labors of section A, were for that 
day to be directed. And so of the others. The courts having 
been allotted, each member of a section received a staff, (ῥάβδος) 
and a counter, (σύμβολον). The staff by the letter and color 
impressed upon it directed him to the court, the exhibition of 
the counter to the proper functionary, entitled him to his fee.” 


We have here a second example of an Appeal to the Feel- 
ings, as preparatory to a statement of facts, and intended to 
influence the judgment, as to those facts. The first instance 
preceded the statement, which the orator gave of his successful 
administration of public affairs in the war against Philip, ὃ 61- 
72; the present prepares the way for the account which he is 
to render for his failure to protect his country from the war 
which Atschines had brought into it. This repetition of the 
modes of treating similar subjects is important to be noticed, 
because it reveals not only the care with which the oration was 
composed, but, also, the judgment of the orator, as to the value 
of these modes. 

In this Appeal, the orator would arouse the sentiments of 
patriotism and glory, and carry them to the highest pitch of 
enthusiasm. He would make his countrymen feel that it was 
to their highest honor to fight for freedom, at whatever cost ; 
that defeat was merely a misfortune, but submission, a dishonor ; 
a dishonor to their own name, and to the fame of their ances- 


219 


tors. The whole Appeal converges to this one point, and term- 
inates in the Oath. If he can lodge this sentiment in their 
breasts, he has won a favorable judgment upon the facts he has 
to state, even before mentioning them. 

But before speaking of the Oath, we notice the Transition, 
by which the orator passes from his lofty eulogiums on the an- 
cient heroes of Athens to the present case. Having set forth 
the noble principles, on which the state had always acted in 
the defense of Grecian freedom, he says—not, that he hemself, 
in his Theban policy, had acted in this spirit—but the state; he 
had been only the agent who had executed her counsels. By 
this unexpected ‘substitution of the state in place of himself, 
besides speaking with becoming modesty of his own services, 
Demosthenes is enabled to charge Aischines as attacking, not 
himself, but the state. It may be noticed, also, that the orator 
claims much less than he might have done. In other places, 
he has put himself forward. “JZ proposed the embassies, J sent 
out the armaments,” §73; “J then appeared such a man on 
that occasion,” §173. But, here, while speaking of the glory 
of the state and of her greatest men, with his usual judgment 
he keeps himself in the back-ground. 

It is hardly necessary to say that this Oath was carefully an- 
alyzed by the ancient Rhetoricians. We give the substance of 
what Longinus says upon it as a mode of influencing the mind. 
“Demosthenes is arguing concerning his political measures, 
Tow would he naturally have done this, if he had not made 
use of the figure of the oath? ‘Ye did not err, Athéfians, in 
contending for the freedom of Greece; on the contrary, ye have 
many examples of such struggles; for neither did your ances- 
tors err at Marathon, nor at Salamis, nor at Platea.” But when 
as if inspired by the Divinity, he swears by the Heroes of 
Greece—‘ It is not possible ye erred; no, I swear by those at 
Marathon, who rushed to the front ranks of danger’—he ap- 
pears, in the very oath itself, to deify their ancestors by whom 
he swore, and, at the same time, he both animates the judges 
with the very spirit of those who fought at Marathon, and so 
infuses a kind of healing balm into the minds of his hearers, 
that, cheered by these praises, they become not less proud of 
the battle against Philip, than of the victories at. Marathon and 
Salamis.” 


om 220 


‘We may notice two things more. 1. The oath was an act 
of religious appeal, for which there was a sufficient ground in 
the belief and feelings of the audience. They believed in deified 
heroes by whom it was proper to swear; and the orator in the 
very act of swearing by them deified their own ancestors. 
With them, therefore, the oath had the reality and solemnity 
of a religious act, in which the speaker was in deep earnest. 
But now, this belief having vanished, the whole tribe of oaths, 
“by the ‘plood of our ancestors,” “ by the spirit of our coun- 
try,” and the hke, must be regarded as a rhetorieal flourish— 
an idle mockery. Indeed, the figure of the oath has become 
one of those empty tr aditions which have lost their vitality ; it 
can no longer influence the feelings, nor produce any other effect 
than that of admiration, it may be, at the skill of the orator. 

Longinus has a remark to the same effeet. Τὴ criticising the 
line of the poet Eupolis—‘ No, I swear by my fight at Mara- 
thon’—which was supposed to have suggested the oath to De- 
mosthenes, he says: “The mere form of an oath is nothing; it 
is necessary to inquire where it was made, how, on what occa- 
sion, and for what end. And, moreover, the poet does not deify 
the men who fought, that he may inspire the hearers with 
thoughts worthy of their bravery, but passes from the heroes to 
the inanimate thing—the battle.” 

2. We must also notice, that in the appeal to the feelings, 
Demosthenes did not forget his argument ; m the very height 
of his passion he remembered the distinction upon which he 
rested his defense of the Theban Alliance, that statesmen should 
be judged by their aims, and not by the result of their meas- 
ures,—“ all of whom alike, Aischines, the state buried, thinking 
them worthy of the same honor, not these alone of them whe 
were suceesstful, nor those only who conquered.”—Demosthenes 
did not utter this oath to strike the hearers with admiration of 
himself as a great orator; he did not look beyond the audience 
before him to future fame; he spoke for a present effect upon 
his cause, and expressed his argument in the impassioned lan- 
guage of an oath, because he could thereby give greater weight 
to that argument. False rhetoric,—speaking to please, not to 
convince, to gain admiration, not to win the cause,—which is 
the prominent fault of modern oratory, is no where to be found 
in Demosthenes. 


221 


This care of Demosthenes to subordinate every thing to the 
success of his cause, is noticed by Longinus. ‘“ He teaches 
us,” says he, “that in the height of passion we should retain 
our judgment. He says, ‘ by those of your ancestors who fought 
at Marathon, by those who engaged in the naval battle at Salamis 
and Artemisium, by those who stood side by side at Platza.’ 
He no where says, ‘ by those who conquered, but shuns the word 
which would indicate the issue of the battles, till at length he 
has prepared the way with the hearers, for the conclusion,—all 
of whom alike the state buried, and not those alone who were 
successful.” He, indeed, specifies no instances of defeat, but 
merely implies them under the general expression—‘ many 
others.” 

The Oath is the climax of the oration. The orator does, in- 
deed, continue from this point onwards in a very high strain of 
oratory, but no where attains to the sublimity of this passage. 
And in this, we notice a distinction between Grecian and mod- 
ern oratory. The modern orator aims to end with a climax,. 
reserving for the conclusion the most powerful of his arguments, 
or appeals; the Greek orator rises to the climax during the 
course of his speech, and then descends from it, ending with 
composure and decorum. 

The orator follows the same principle, in the present instance. 
He passes, at once, without effort, from the impassioned and 
sublime utterance of the oath, to bitter vituperation, and thence 
to a calm statement of the principles upon which public and 
private measures should be examined and decided. With both 
of these topics, however, critics have found fault; with the 
former, as failing in decorum, and with the latter, as being too 
tame. But both topics are as they should be; they are natu- 
rally and effectively introduced. 

In regard to the first, A%schines, in two very powerful pas- 
sages of his oration, had brought Demosthenes into disparaging 
contrast with the ancient heroes of Greece. Now, Demosthenes 
had just uttered an oath by these same heroes, and carried his 
audience, we may suppose, to the highest pitch of excitement. 
What more natural, then, or effective, than to turn this current 
of patriotic feeling against his opponent as wanting in the spirit 
which animated their ancestors, while the orator takes the op- 
portunity to intimate his own sympathy with them, under the 

| 19* 


222 


modest form of the αποϑίϊοη---- with whose spirit inspired 
should I have mounted the Bema ?” 

Demosthenes did not speak to please the fastidious critics of 
later ages, but to win his cause ; and one way of doing this, he 
knew, was to depreciate his accuser in the minds of the judges, 
and modestly to commend himself to their favor. Here, while the 
minds of the judges were animated with the glow of patriotic 
feelings, was an opportunity to do it, and he accordingly made 
the attempt. This is another lesson upon the importance of an 
earnest and all-engrossing effort to produce a present effect upon 
the minds of those who are to make the decision upon the case 
before them. 

Again, the second topic enforces upon the judges the duty 
of being governed by the same principle in dectding, which is 
assumed i the oath as obligatory upon statesmen in acting. 
Indeed, this duty follows with logical precision from the Oath. 
For, if statesmen should be guided by the spirit of their ances- 
_tors in their public measures, so should judges in their decision 
upon those measures. “If I had proposed counsels unworthy 
of your ancestors, I should have been justly condemned to 
death. For public trials should be decided with reference to 
their worthy deeds, and the judge should feel that along with 
the rod of office he takes the spirit of his country, when he 
enters upon public causes.” Now, the orator did not pronounce 
the Oath merely to excite the patriotic feelings of the judges, 
but to produce in their minds such conviction and such feelings, 
as should lead to his acquittal. Hence, as is usual with him, 
he carefully points out the inference, and enforces it upon their 
attention. . 


§ 211-247. Narrative. 


Having prepared his hearers by these appeals, to judge fayor- 
ably of the treaty with Thebes, and to overlook its fatal results, 
the orator proceeds to describe the events in the order of their 
occurrence. . And here, he carries to an unusual degree his 
favorite mode of a brief statement of the fact, followed by vari- 
ous applications of the fact. As attention has already been 
repeatedly drawn to this method, it will not be necessary farther 
to point out the particular instances. The following are the 
topics in their order. 


223 


I. Arrival of the embassadors at Thebes. § 211-212. 

II. The Assembly in Thebes. § 213-214. 

III. March of the Troops; Reception in Thebes; the first two 
Skirmishes. ὃ. 215-216. 

IV. Rejoicings of the Athenians at their success; Fear of 
Philip; Honors to Demosthenes. ὃ 217-226. 

V. The Advantages of the Theban Alliance, notwithstanding 
the defeat at Cheronea. § 227-233. 

VI. The Disadvantages of the Allies in the contest. ὃ 234-243. 

VII. The Battle of Cheronea. § 244-247. 


§ 211-212. Tue ARRIVAL OF THE EmBASSADORS AT THEBES. 


Under this head, we have the formal transition, the state- 
ment of the fact, and, while the clerk is preparing to read the 
letter of the embassadors, the application. 

τῶν ἄλλων ovuucyoy, such as, the Ainianians, the Ato- 
lians, Dolopians, and Phthiotians. τοσαύτη γ᾽, compare τὰ 
μέγιστά ye. §110, and Note. τὸν καιρόν, See Aischines, 
§ 137, 8141, 8289. ὡς ἑτέρως. See $85,and Note. τὴν 
ἐμὴν τύχην. See Aschines, $157. ouvalteos, contras- 
ted with μόνος αὕτιος. 


§ 213-214. Tue AssemBiy ΙΝ THEBEs. 


τὸ δ᾽ οὖν κεφάλαιον, but, for substance, then; the 
sum of what they demanded; not, “in a word ;” BroveHam, 
nor, “in fine,” ΚΈΝΝΕΡΥ. οὖν implies that the detail is omit- 
ted, and resumes: the discourse. So, also, 6 τὸ δ᾽ οὖν, below. 
τὸ κεφάλαιον, “est absolute dictum nec syntactice coheret 
cum sequentibus, in summa; ad summan; summatim. Scuar- 
FER. But Matthize makes it in apposition with the whole clause. 
8. 482, ὅ. διέντας, letting them pass through. See § 146, 
ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς. ἐπ conforms to ἥξοντα. See 8145, τὰ 
μὲν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, each particular; τὰ μὲν having its cor- 
respondence in 6 τὺ 0’, the contrast being between the details and 
the result. ἐγὼ μὲν, contrasted with ὑμᾶς δέ, ἀντὶ πα »- 
τὸς ἂν τιμησαίμην τοῦ βίου, “majoris faciam, quam 
vivere ;” or, “vite ipsi equiparem.” ΤΝΡΕΧ ΟΕ ΟΙΤΑΤΙΒ, under 
βίος and τιμᾷν, “ the reply we made, I would give my life to reca- 


a 


224 


pitulate.” Kunnepy. ὥσπερ ἂν εἰὶ,--ἡγούμενοιυ, thinking 
there had been as it were—aoneg ἂν si. Burt. 8.149, m. 8.161, 8, 
—a deluge overwhelming the affairs. μάταιον ὄχλον, a 
useless vexation. The greater the obstacles, the greater the 
merit of overcoming them. Hence, the orator enlarges upon 
the obstacles, but contents himself with simply declaring the 
fact of his triumph. He declines to repeat the speech, partly, 
for the reason alleged, and partly, perhaps, because he had just 
repeated one, and it could serve here no good purpose. Plu- 
tarch says of this speech: “The advantage of the alliance did 
not escape the Thebans, but each one had before his eyes the 
horrors of the war, the Phocian wounds being still fresh ; yet, 
says Theopompus, the power of the orator so set on fire their 
souls and so influenced their ambition, that it threw every thing 
else into the shade, and, inspired by the appeals to their honor, 
they forgot both fear and prudence and gratitude.” Dem. 18. 


§ 215-216. Marcu or tue Troors; Recrrrion 1n THEBES; 
First Two SKIRMISHES. | 


τῶν ὁπλιτῶν καὶ τῶν ἱππέων, that is, of the Athe- 
nians. Backs, Pub. Econ. of Athens, p. 284, and Dissen, 
Reiske refers them to the Thebans, στρατιάν, the body of 
citizen troops. ‘The heavy-armed troops and cavalry were mer- 
cenaries. Bacxu, p.271. τὰ tTeuew@tate. A general term, 
embracing the two preceding. “ Additum abundantia oratorja ; 
nam nihil quidquam differt ab antecedentibus, παῖδας καὶ γυναῖ- 
xas.” SCHAEFER. # 4/104, in its primitive sense; and indeed. 
See 8100, καθ’ ὑμῶν. “ κατὰ in bonam partem, de vobis,.” 
See Phil. Π' ὃ 9, and Scuaurer’s note. καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι δ᾽. 
Dissen, though without manuscript authority, excludes δέ from 
the text, on the ground that there is nothing emphatic in this 
clause. But Reiske explains the emphasis, thus: “imo potius, 
ut rectius dicam, apud omnes : or, rather, among all, τὰ ἐν 
πλείστη φυλακῆ. “Ad φυλακῇ subauditur ὄντα." RetsKe, 
But compare τὰ ἐν avtoig == res vestree civiles; οἱ ἐν ταῖς αἰτίαις 
==rel; of ἐν yévev == cognati. Herm. ad Vie. p. 856. Although 
the ellipsis of a participle may explain the origin of the use, it 
is an expression fixed in the language, not made on the occasion 
by the speaker, and needs nothing to be supplied. ow go- 


225 


σύνης, the genitive of the object; confidence in your virtue ; 
a confidence in virtue, with respect to you. κατά γ᾽ ὑμᾶς. 
γε has a peculiar emphasis. So far as you at least are con- 
cerned ; with a remote allusion to the fatal issue of the alliance. 
Although the allied forces were defeated, it was fortune that 
did it, not any fault on the part of the Athenians. So far as 
the Athenians themselves were concerned, therefore, the The- 
bans did not misplace their confidence. There is a similar 
thought expressed in full in § 247. ἀήττητος ἡ πόλις τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, 
ovte—ivextkhecey, for never did any one bring any accu- 
sation—not even unjustly—against you. δίς τὸ συμπαρα- 
ταξάμενον τὰς πρώτας μάχας, and being drawn up 
together twice in the first skirmishes ; τὰς πρώτας μάχας, being 
an object of kindred meaning with the verb. Burr. Gr. §131, 4. 
ἐπὶ tot ποταμοῦ, probably, the Cephissus, which would 
have to be passed by Philip on his march from Elatea to Boeo- 
tia. Dissen. τὴν χειμερυνγήν, according to some, the 
winter-batile ; according to others, the battle in the storm. 
There can be no objection to the former explanation, which the 
obvious meaning of the word requires, if we follow Grote in 
prolonging the duration of the’campaign. Nothing is known 
of these two battles, except what we learn from Demosthenes. 
τῷ κόὀσμῳ---τἢ προθυμίᾳ, “admirable in discepline, mn 
equipment, in courage.” Lord Brovenam; the articles being 
happily disregarded. 


§ 217-226. Resoicine or tHE ATHENIANS; FEARS oF PHILIP; 
Honors to DemMostTHENEs. 


The specific facts to which Demosthenes refers, are the De- 
crees of Sacrifice, the Letters of Philip, and the Decrees be- 
stowing crowns upon himself. These public documents are 
read, but are preceded and followed by remarks. 

§ 217. Tue DILEMMA IN wHIcH A‘SCHINES IS PLACED, BY 
THE DECREES OF SACRIFICE.—adtO¢ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐἔἐποι ή- 
σατο μάρτυρα ς, since in sacrificing with his fellow-citizens 
he called on the gods as witnesses of their successes. οὐκ 
ἄριστα---τοὺς θεούς, if he now demands of you to con- 
demn these as not best—which they would do, by condemning 
the decree of Ctesiphon which declared they were so—you, who 


220 


have sworn by the gods—said with reference to the judicial oath, 
ἀπολωλέναν πολλάκες. Compare Shakespeare’s “a thou- 
sand deaths would die.” See, also, Philippic ΠῚ, § 65, τεθνάγαν 
δὲ wugedxig——* The beauty of this passage is very striking. 
Not merely the exquisite diction—the majesty of the rhythm— 
the skillful collocation—the picturesque description of A¢schines’ 
dismay, and skulking from the public rejoicings; but the argu- 
ment is to be observed and admired. It is a dilemma, and one 
which would be quite sufficient for the momentary victory at 
which alone the orator often aims. It is not closely reasoned; 
it is not a complete dilemma; a retort is obvious, (to use the 
language of the logicians,) and this is always fatal, being the 
test before which no bad dilemma can stand. A‘schines had 
only to embrace the second alternative—the second horn—and 
it never could have transfixed him. ‘I did remain at home, not 
mourning over the success of your measures, but their wicked- 
ness ; not grudging the people their short-lived joy, but grieved 
to see them deluded by your arts to their ruin.’. This answer 
was complete. Nevertheless, there are but few complete dilem- 
mas in the whole course of any argument upon any subject; 
and the one under consideration is quite good enough to pass 
with an audience in a speech. Many much less complete are 
every day used with us both in the senate, in popular assem- 
blies, and even at the bar, and with sufficient success. This 
whole passage would be of certain success in our Parliament.” 
Lord BroveHam. 

§ 218. Tue Decrees or SAcRIFICE FOLLOWED BY AN IN- 
FERENCE FROM THEM, AND A TRANSITION TO THE LETTERS OF 
Puitp.—*oal megvevotyxer—éuol, Observe how finely 
this member repeats and enlarges the corresponding clauses of 
the first member. περιδιστήκει, had happened, at the time of 
which the orator speaks. συνέχενα, perseverance. Compare 
τούτων γὰρ εἰχόμην, §79, for these I clung to, followed up. 
πλάνου, journeyings, with reference to his many embassies 
and journeys to other states. & viv οὗτος διέσυρε. 
Dissen remarks that he knows of no passage in A’schines to 
which this may refer. Aischines, however, speaks of decrees 
“longer than the Iliad, but emptier than the words which he 
is accustomed to speak, and the life he leads, and full of hopes 
never to be realized, and armies never to be collected.” § 100. 


227 


8. 219-221. ReMARKS WITH REFERENCE ΤῸ HIMSELF.—These 
remarks are made while the clerk is preparing to read the Let- 
ters, ἀλλ᾽ Buwso—tH πόλευ, but yet no one of these ever 
in any transaction—ovdels εἰς otdév—gave himself to the state 
throughout the whole of ἐϊ---διὰ παντός, “sic ut totum nego- 
tium administraret.” ScHAEFER. ἀναφοράν, means of escape; 
that is, of turning the blame from himself—a maneuver not 
yet obsolete in political life. οὕτως, “referendum ad uéyar.” 
Scuarrer. See §163, and Note. ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἐδόκει --- 
πράξειεν, that it seemed to me to allow no opportunity or 
forethought for personal safety, but that one should be satisfied if 
neglecting nothing he should do his duty,—é δεῖ---, ἐδόκει, 
that is, ὁ κίνδυνος. WausteRMANN. τῆς ἀσφαλείας, grammat- 
ically belongs to πρόνοιαν, χώραν requiring the dative: to give 
no place to, nor forethought of, personal safety. WnstERMANN, 
τυχὸν μὲν advarcbytar, it may be, indeed, stupidly, 
βέλτιον, “pertinet etiam πρᾶξαν." ScHAEFER. 

§ 222. Lerrers or Purr, wir a Transition to THE Dz- 
CREES TO CROWN DeMosTHENES.—tT& πρὸ τούτων. See 
8188. πολλοὺς ---λόγους, “multa et audacia verba jac- 
tare solitus.” Dissen. τὸ μέρος. See 8108, and Note. τὰ 
τότε μὲν---γραφέντα, at that time successfully defended, 
but by this man—Atschines—not even indicted. 

§ 223-226. DecrEEs ΤῸ crowN DEMOSTHENES, WITH AN 
APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE.—&ineg ἀλη θῆ---κατη- 
yoosi. The argument is this: if the charges which he now 
brings against me as his ground for impeaching Ctesiphon, 
were true, he would more naturally have brought them forward 
at that time as grounds for impeaching Demomeles and Hype- 
rides, δὲ κότως, with greater propriety. τόν δ᾽, Ctesiphon, | 
dtr τῷ μὲν---προλαβεῖν, because now ἐξ is in his power 
—Ctesiphon’s—to refer to them—Demomeles and Hyperides— 
and to the decisions of the courts,—that is, in the impeachments 
brought by Diondas—and to the fact that this very person—Ais- 
chines—did not prosecute them though proposing the same things 
which this person—Ctesiphon—has just done, and to the fact 
that the laws do not permit prosecutions concerning things thus 
settled,—ob1w πραχθέντων, with reference to the adjudication in 
a trial of the παρανόμων γράφη, and to the proclamation of the 
crown by the people,—and to many other things ; but in the 


228 


ease supposed—tore δ᾽ corresponding to τῷ uéy—the cause would 
have been decided by rtself—-that is, on its own merits; “ tune 
autem ipsa causa judicata esset sola per se,” ScuarFER,—before 
et had taken to itself any of these things—that is, of the pleas 
just mentioned : or, the case on the part of his prosecutor would 
not have been cumbered with the objections, which can now 
be made. πρίν te τούτων προλαβεῖν. Seep, 866, 
The law prohibiting a second prosecution for a matter once 
tried is to be found in Andocides against Alcibiades, p. 30, § 9, 
Bekk. and is quoted by Dissen, as follows: τῶν νόμων ἀπαγο- 
θευόντων δὶς περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν μὴ ἐξεῖναν δικάζεσθαι. 
It is obvious, however, that the plea of exceptio judicati, strictly 
speaking, could not be made here, both because the parties 
were different, and because the subject-matter was not in all 
respects the same. Still the spirit of the law would apply, and 
the argument, as Westermann says, is rather moral than legal, 
For, it was the same person who was in reality attacked in both 
cases,—Demosthenes—and the crown was proposed by Ctesi- 
phon about substantially the same transactions—the transac- 
tions in the last war. ἐπὶ τῆς ἀληθείας. See 817. 
dvdmeg—%xev. See, for the same expression, §15, and 
Notes.—The inference from the fact that Aschines did not 
prosecute these decrees, viewed in connection with the disad- 
vantages under which he labored in the present trial is this— 
that he had no proper motive as a prosecutor, but got up the 
trial merely as a ῥητόρων ἀγῶνα. This is the third time Demos- 
thenes has charged Aischines, founding the charge upon the fact 
that he did not prosecute him at the time the crimes were alleged 
to have taken pld4ce—with having other motives in the impeach- 
ment than such as belong to an honest prosecutor ; first, with 
aiming, out of personal enmity, at himself, §12-16; but, sec- 
ondly, under the disguise of attacking himself, with aiming at 
the state, § 125; and, here, with an ambition of making an ora- 
torical display. See § 12-16 and $125, with Notes. 


§ 227-231. Tue Apvantaczes or THE THEBAN ALLIANCE, 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEFEAT AT CHARONEA. 


The orator having narrated the arrival of the embassy in 
Thebes, the proceedings of the assembly, the march of the 
troops, their reception and victories, together with the rejoicing 


229 


in Athens, the anxiety of Philip, and the honors to himself, 
would naturally proceed next in order to speak of the battle of 
Cheronea. But, before coming to this, he interposes two top- 
ics} the first, the benefits of the Alliance, notwithstanding the 
defeat, and the second, the disadvantages under which the allies 
labored, both as regards money and troops, compared with 
Philip. The topics were most happily brought in just at this 
time ; the former shows that, though frustrated, his policy was 
a good one, while the latter accounts for its being frustrated ; 
and both are well adapted to mitigate the pain of the defeat. 
We may also notice how skillfully they are introduced. De- 
mosthenes had just charged Aischines with having got up this 
trial in order to have a contest im oratory. He here examines 
a specimen of his oratory. 

Εἶτα σοφίζεται. εἶτα introduces the example with a 
sneer; he plays the sophist, then. καὶ φησί. See Aischines, 
$59. megrvetvar yoermuata, that money remains; that 
there is a balance in your favor. τῷ λογίζησθε, you settle 
with some one,—te==tevt, See $5. ἂν καθαραὶ ὦσιν 
af ψῆφου, should the accounts be square. The pebbles, at 
wior, are used for reckoning. The process seems to have been, 
first, to lay down the pebbles opposite each other,—yjous t- 
dévear— ; next, to take up those that were of the same value, 
from each side,—yjgous ἀνταναιρεῖν---- ; then, if all on each 
side were removed, the debtor and creditor side would be equal, 
or the accounts squared, when it was said, καθαραὶ εἰσιν ai ψή- 
got. From Scnarrer and Dissen. ἐκ tot λόγου, from 
the discussion; the arguments of both parties. 9 0 p οὔ, iron- 
ical; “sapient:” Lord Brovcuam. ‘viv γ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὑπάρ- 
χειν ἐγνωσμένους, that now at least we are understood. 
καὶ μὴν ὅτι γε---ἀἀξιῶν, and in truth, that at least he 
says what is unjust in demanding this opinion to be changed— 
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν---λογισμός, for there is no such way of 
reckoning ; or, actions are not to be reckoned in this way— 
οὗτος. πρὸς ἐκεῖνον. The selection of various readings, 
and the proposal of emendations, often involve the nicest ques- 
tions of style. Thus, here, both Reiske and Taylor have pro- 
posed to add ἐποίησε after ἐκεῖνον, Reiske, however, remarking, 
“not as necessary, but for the sake of perspicuity.” But Schaefer 
replies with indignation ; “tam languet enim, tam inscite addi- 

20 


280 


tum est, ut qui additum malit parum intellexisse videatur, quid 
leges concinnitatis in struendis periodis poscant.” ἄρά σοε--- 
φαίνεται. The orator here turns upon Aischines, and asks — 
him sneeringly how he likes this kind of reckoning. Does, 
then, the reckoning of actions—not, this reckoning, but. the 
kind of reckoning of which he had just given him an example 
—seem to you like the reckoning of accounts? ἢ δεῖ» --- 
σκέψασθαιν, or does it seem necessary to expunge these, and 
not rather, to consider how they may be remembered through all 
time. Demosthenes had stated the results of his Theban policy 
and what would have been the results, if the measures of Atschi- 
nes had been followed—in the form of an account, the one being 
set against the other. Now, after asking Atschines how he 
likes this sort of reckoning, he inquires whether he thinks both 
of these results should be blotted. out, as ἴῃ δὴ account which is 
balanced, or whether we should consider how both should be 
remembered for ever.—This is the view of Schaefer. ‘“ Quid est 
ταῦτα ὁ Kt ea, que Demosthenis administratio reipublice salu- 
taria civitati gloriosaque effecit, et ea que A’schinis administra- 
tio damnosa turpiaque effectura erat, si cives ejus consilia pro- 
bassent. Utraque in antegressis commemorantur. Quid est 
avtavehsiv? Utraque ad instar numerorum parium sed inter 
se oppositorum tollere, hoc est, oblivione perimere, ut numeri 
ili computatione perimuntur. Hoc vero Demosthenes vetat : 
nam jubet curari ut et sua preclara facinora et Aschinis foeda 
ausa sempiternee memoriz tradantur.” καὶ οὐκέτυ προσ- 
τίθημι, and I no farther add; that is, to the list of advan- 
tages gained and losses avoided, already made; or, I do not 
now add,— non jam,” ScHAEFER, but without implying any 
subsequent notice. ἣ» ἐν oig¢—ideiv, which it is com- 
mon to see where—éy οἷς ==“ ubi,’ Reiske and Dissen, but 
Schaefer, guibus in rebus,—Philip has become master of any. 
τὰ λοιπὰ---περιδθαλλόμενο ς, compassing his remain- 
ing purposes. “ Opponuntur inter se καθάπαξ κύριον καθίστασ- 
Oar et περιβάλλεσθαν. IJliud vim armorum, hoe dolum consilio- 
rum significat.” ScHAEFER. buéic καλῶς ποιοῦντες, 
you happily received the fruits. καλῶς ποιοῦντες is a peculiar 
phrase, and is exactly represented here by the word, happily, 
which means, not, you being happy received, or, were happy in 
receiving, but, you received the fruits and I am happy you did. 


231 


Thus, Hermann; “Verum indicatur his verbis facere aliquem — 
id, quod aut sibi ipsi commodum est, aut, quod is, qui loquitur, 
fieri optat et gaudet.” Ad Vie. 777. In the latter case, καλῶς 
ποιῶν refers logically to the person speaking, and expresses his 
feelings, though grammatically it is connected with the subject 
of the verb; as, here, ποιοῦντες with ὑμεῖς, though it expresses 
the feelings of Demosthenes. 


In defending the Theban alliance, Demosthenes appeals chiefly . 
to the sentiment of honor, subordinately, however, to the prin- 
ciple of utility. At the outset, §195, he threw in a clause, 
setting forth the effect of the alliance in keeping the war from 
the territory of Attica and giving opportunity, after the disaster 
at Chzronea, for deliberation. He here takes up the topic 
formally and handles it with greater vigor. By comparing 
§195, § 230, § 240-241, the student will see with what skill 
the orator has three several times repeated and enforced the 
same statement. We may, also, call to mind that the orator 
has heretofore, made the same appeal to the principle of utility, 
and in the same subordinate way. See § 65, § 89. 


§ 232-243. Comparison oF THE RESOURCES ‘OF THE CON- 
TENDING PARTIES, WITH AN APPLICATION. 


This topic, like the last one, is introduced by a criticism on 
Aéschines as an orator, thus carrying still farther his allusion 
to the oratorical contest, which he had charged Aischines as 
aiming at. § 232-233. InrropucTion.—*atyyOQet, In- 
cludes the notion of saying. Hence, he would not say in ac- 
cusing such things as you just now said. παραδείγματα, 
“quale lud σοφὸν scilicet παράδειγμα τῶν ψήφων, quod orator 
modo explosit.” ScHAEFER. δήματα, phrases. See Atschi- 
nes, § 72,8166. σχήματα, gestures. See Aischines, § 209. 
παρὰ τοῦτο γέγονε, “depended upon this.” TayLor,— 
ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων, on the ground of the facts them- 
selves. See 8117, and Note. ἀφορμάς, resources; it in- 
cludes every thing pertaining to war; men, money, ships, and 
the like. εἰς t&—eiarnery, when I entered upon public 
affairs. “al tlyac—éyd, and what, when I was at the 
head of public affairs—énvotds, see ὃ 60, for the full expres- 


282 


sion, and the Note—I afterwards added to it. χρήσομαι 
τῷ λόγω,-- λέξω. See ὃ 252. ὃ. 234-239. Taz Comparison. 
divaury μέν, the second accusative, completing the notion 
of the predicate; as a force, the state had the islanders. 
Κύηνεε Gr. § 280, 4, §240,2. χρημάτων δέ, but as to 
money. σύνταξεν. At the formation of the new Confedera- 
tion, (see Hist. Sketch, p. 18) the assessment paid by the con- 
federate states was called σύνταξις, a contribution, not φόρος, 
a tribute. After the Social War, when most of the states 


* became independent, it amounted, it seems, only to forty-five 


eh aeRO 


talents, though probably this was the lowest point, to which 
itsank,. προδξειλεγμένα, collected in advance. ὃπ.λί- 
την δ᾽ ἢ ἱππέα πλὴν τῶν οἱκείων οὐδένα, troo 

of the allies, since Demosthenes is here speaking of the aid he 
obtained from the other Grecian states. ὁπλίτην δ᾽ ἢ ἱππέα, are 
mercenaries, hired by the allies, as is obvious from the use of 
Eévor, below, § 237; τῶν οἰκείων, the same as τῶν πολιτιπῶν, 
below, § 237, are the citizen soldiery of the allies. See Scuaz- 
FER. καὶ ἔπραττεν---κύριος πάντων. With this 
description, compare Canning’s, of Bonaparte. “He asks no 
counsel, he renders no account, he wields at will the population 
and resources of a mighty empire, and its dependent states.” 
The entire passage, however, both in point of condensation, and 
in the logical sequence of thought, is far inferior. (Speech on 
the Expedition to the Scheldt.) αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ δημηγο- 
θεῖν πρῶτον, for at the outset,—to come to the main point 
at once—the very speaking before the people. This was the 
only thing in which it could be pretended he had supreme 
power. πρῶτον, not, in the first place, not, to address the 
people first, but, in a somewhat peculiar sense, difficult to ex- 
press except by a circumlocution, at once, at the first view. See 
πρὸς Ayntlyyy, §54, 8106. “ For, first,” Lord BroveHam ; 
but there is no second. ‘ For instance,” Kunnepy; but most 
translations omit it, καὶ ὅσα--βεβουλευμένοι, and 
whatever measures they carried against me,—and many were 
these, from whatever cause each might happen—these you went 
away—that is, “e concione,” Retske—having adopted in fa- 
vor of the enemy. δι᾽ ἣν ἕκαστον τύχοι πρόφασιν. 
τύχουν as denoting a chance result gives an indefiniteness to the 
proposition, from one cause or another. ἀλλ ὅμως--συν- 


289 


ἠχθησαν, Boeckh thus states the account of the troops other 
than Athenians employed against Philip. “The greatest num- 
ber of mercenaries which Athens collected at this time was 
fifteen thousand, together with two thousand cavalry, which 
were furnished by the Eubceans, &c., in addition to the other 
force composed of the citizens of these nations.” Pub. Econ. B, 
Il, Ch. xv1, p. 271. τὰ πρὸς Θηβαίους dixava, our 
rights with respect to the Thebans; not what they could claim 
of us, but we of them. περὶ τῶν ἔσω ν, of equal appor- 
tionments. “τὰ ἴσα h.J. sunt eeque portiones sumtuum in 
bellum faciendorum.” Scuarrer. See A’schines, 8148 and § 91. 
παρέσχϑτο, for another instance of the repetition of the 
same verb, see ἐξηπάτησθε, §42. εἶτα, corresponds to πρῶτον 
μέν. ‘The reply of Demosthenes is two-fold ; that the treaties 
were in accordance with the generous spirit, with which Athens 
had always acted, and that it was useless to bring forward the 
accusation at this late hour ;—topics which have already been 
urged more than once. παρών, “prasens in concionibus, ubi 
de illis rebus agebatur.” Scuarrer. This is clear from its con- 
nection with ἔγραφες. eimeg—xavroods, if indeed these 
were practicable by reason of these times; “maga — διά." 
ScHaerer. § 240-243. Conciusion—AAd’ δὶ viv. Hay- 
ing just charged Atschines with being a malicious accuser,— 
συκοφαντῶν ---ἢϑ very naturally introduces the present topic ;— 
if he had done as they now propose, they would have accused 
‘him still the more, their object being nothing but to accuse. 
| This is a common topic in constant use. Εὐβοίας καὶ 
᾿Θηβῶν καὶ Βυζαντίου, but below in the reverse order, 
by the chiasmus. τῆς σιτοπομπίας. 866 8387. ληστῶν. 
See 8145, πονηρὸν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, πονηρὸν 
ὃ συκοφάντης. Compare a similar form of expression in 
Aéschines; καλὸν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, καλὸν ἡ τῶν δημοσίων 
γραμμάτων φυλακή. ὃ 1δ. τοῦτο δὲ--ἐστυν, but this little 
creature is by nature a fox. αὐτοτραγικὸς πίθηκος, 
a genuine tragic ape. ὥσπερ ἂν ci—hdyers, as ifa 
physician going to the sick while they were in a feeble state—— 
ἀσθενοῦσι μὲν the predicate of τοῦς κάμνουσιν and having its 
correspondence in ἐπειδὴ 0é—should neither mention nor point 
out by what means they could escape the disease, but when one 
of them has died and the funeral rites are performing, fol- 
20* 


284 


lowing to the tomb, should explain, if this man had done so 
and so, he would not have died. Fool! is it now you speak? 


The present section and the last one taken together form a 
certain whole, though following the general course of remarks, 
The unity will be obvious from recalling the course of thought. 
Atschines had brought the impeachment in order to institute a 
trial of oratory. Demosthenes then sneeringly alludes to a 
specimen of his oratory, or rather of his sophistry, and turns it 
against him with great force. He next speaks, in contrast with 
the course of Atschines, of what the true orator would do in 
examining the conduct of the statesman, and gives an example 
of such an examination, in speaking of the disadvantages under 
which the Athenians labored. He concludes with setting forth 
the character of the party orator, and of the malicious accuser. 
Thus, the single idea with which he started gives tone to the 
whole. 

᾿ς The last three sentences are a fitting conclusion of this topic. 

The first attacks AXschines and his party as determined to find 
fault with whatever course might be taken ; the second general- 
izes, as if from these instances, the character of the whole class 
of demagogues and sycophants; while the third turns upon 
/eschines individually, and ends with one of these pointed re- 

marks, with which, at intervals, the orator is fond of winding 
up any important topic. 


§ 244-247. Barrtz or CuaRoneEA. 

) The orator having thus carefully prepared the way, proceeds to 
| speak of the fatal battle, though without formality, and without 
/ any display of effort which might show that he was conscious 
of having a difficult point to meet. οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ τὴν 
ἥτταν, not then, not even the defeat. ἐν οὐδενὶ τῶν 
παρ᾿. ἐμοὶ, “nulla in re que in potestate mea sita futt.” 
W. Dinvorr. ἐν οἷς--,κατεστρέφετο, but in what 
places his embassadors were overcome by arguments, these he 
attacked by arms and brought under himself; “ But where 
his embassadors were vanquished in argument, he came with 
arms and carried the day.” Kunnepy. εἴς τὸ μαλακίαν 


σκώπτων, with reference to the frequent charge of cowardice 


235 


brought against him by Aischines. $148, 152, 155, 175. ἕνα 
ὄντα, not, that I, but, that he—the same man*—being one ; 
for though it refers to himself, he forbears, as long as he can, to 
mention himself directly. πᾶσαν ἐξέτασυν, any scrutiny, 
however severe. See $5. ἰδεῖν, to see,simply. προαυσθέ σ- 
θαυ, to see and feel the importance of what is seen, πολιτικὰ --: 
οἰκεία, home-bred ; natural. See 8. 284, 287. ticov.—dv@x7- 
σατο, by what means Philip managed the greater part of 
those things which he achieved. τῷ Otddvar καὶ δια- 
φθείρευν, by promises and bribes to those in power. τῷ 
διαφθαρῆναι---Φελίππου, in the matter of being bribed 
by money or not, I have conquered Philip. ὥσπερ yeQ— 
τὸν ὠνούμενον. ‘This is not an example drawn from the 
buyer and seller of merchandize, but the terms so used are ap- 
glied to bribery and corruption. For as he who offers to buy—— 
ὁ ὠνούμενος, *“ emens, hic i. gq. largitionibus corrumpens,” 
ScuarFer—has conquered him who listens to the offer,—tov 
λαβόντα, corresponding to 6 ὠνούμενος, the one to whom the 
offer is made and who entertains it—in case he buys him,-—- 
πρίηται, “si perpulit at acciperet,” ScHAEFER,—so he who net- 
ther listens nor is bought has conquered him who makes the 


offer. 


In explaining the arrangement of the topics, we have been” 
compelled to refer frequently to the battle of Chzronea, and. to 
the present passage. ‘The orator himself, however, it hardly 
need be said, makes no such explanation, nor gives to it any — 
such prominence. He has done no more than mention once or 
twice the fact of the battle; and the present passage formally 
relating to it is introduced without parade, in its natural, chro- 
nological order, and is in no respect preéminent over the ad- 
joining passages. 

The duty of the Athenian statesman in the choice of his meas- 
uves is what the orator had hitherto dwelt upon, and in respect 
to which he had shown that he acted in the spirit of his coun- 

try. The present topic relates to the execution of these meas- 
ures, and here, too, he shows pet he had failed in no duty 
which could be exacted of the statesman. This completes his 
“defense; both in the choice of mods and in the execution of 


‘measures, he stands acquitted of all blame. 


236 


§ 248-290. ApprovaL or THE MzAsures or DeMosTHENES 
BY THE PEOPLE, AFTER THE BATTLE OF CHARONEA. 


In treating of the Amphissean war, the orator spoke first of 
the treachery of Aischines, by which that war was brought into 
Attica. With the battle of Chzronea terminates the course of 
measures by which Demosthenes strove in vain to deliver his 
country from that great calamity. One topic remains; the 
approval of these measures, notwithstanding the fatal issue of 

: them, by the people of Athens. Under this head, there are 

_ three important facts which the orator brings forward ; his elec- 
tion to several important posts connected with the defense of 
the city, and his acquittal in various impeachments brought 
_ against him, immediately after the battle; his appointment to 
_ pronounce the funeral oration over the slain ; and the inserip- 

| tion placed upon their monument, These facts, however, take 
up but a small portion of this part of the oration ; between the 
first and the last two, the orator interposes two other topics of a 
different kind; a comparison of the Fortune of himself and 
Aéschines, and a reply to the charge of deceiving and mislead- 
ing, by the power of eloquence. We have, then, the following 
topics : 

I. Proceedings at Athens immediately after the battle. § 248- 
251. 

Il. Reply to the charge that he was an ill-fated man, and a 
comparison of his fortune with that of Auschines. § 252-275. 

III. Reply to the charge of deceiving and misleading, by the 
power of eloquence. § 276-284. 

IV. Appointment to pronounce the funeral oration over the 
slain. ὃ 285-288. 

VY. The Inscription on the Monument erected over the slain, 
§ 289-290. 


§ 248-251. Procrrpines art ATHENS IMMEDIATELY AFTER 
THE BATTLE. 


εὶς τὸ δικαίως τοιαῦτα γράφειν τουτονί. De- 
mosthenes seems to have forgotten, or, more probably, supposes 
his audience to have forgotten, that he professed, at the outset 
of this part of his speech, to have finished his defense, and de- 


237 


clared‘the aim of his subsequent remarks to be, to retaliate on 
Aischines, not to justify Ctesiphon. See 8126, and Note. 
εἰδὼς καὶ ogaxds, “probe sciens.” Dissmen. ἐμβ e- 
βηκώς, “ versans in ipsis terroribus.” Scuarrer. Not con- 
nected with the preceding participles, because standing in a 
different relation to the finite verb. Although living in the 
very midst of the horrors and dangers. ἡν (κ᾽ --πρὸς ἐμέ, 
when it would not have been strange—éy is omitted with ἦν, 
as is usual in such phrases as, αἰσχρὸν ἦν, εἰκὸς ἦν, and the like, 
ScHaEFeR,—tf the people had been somewhat disaffected—ey- 
γωμονῆσαί t—towards me. σιτώνην, a commissary for 
procuring grain; an office of the greatest trust and importance. 
See 887, 8241. γραφάς, εὐθύνας, εἰσαγγελίας, for 
the distinctions, see Introduction, p. 88, 89, 90, δῇ 818, κατὰ 
τὴν ἡμέραν ἑκάστην, day after day. See§$68. τοῦτο 
γάρ--δικαστῶν, for this is both according to truth—éy- 
θές, what facts, the reality—require—and is useful to, or, (as 
we should rather say), worthy of judges, who are under oath 
and who decide according to their oaths, ὑπὲρ τῶν δε- 
καστῶν, “utile judicibus, qui, si aliter judicarent, sibi ipsi 
nocerent, quippe peierantes.” Scuanrer. See $1, § 234. Here, 
as elsewhere, Demosthenes regards the decision of the judges as 


a matter of religious duty. See the Exordium, and 8.126. τί, ἡ 


construed with ὄνομα. τὸν δῆμον, τοὺς δικαστάς, 
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, correspond to the different kinds of trial, 


since the εἰσαγγδλία was tried before the people, the παρανόμων 
γραφή before the judges, and the δὐθύνη, before the logiste, | 


where the question was a matter of fact ; hence, ἡ ἀλήθεια must | 


mean, not truth in the abstract, but the reality, or as we should | 


say, facts. Was it not that which he saw the people giving— 
not that, the Judges on oath—not that, Facts confirming before 
all. We naturally expect the sentence to end with ἀλήθειαν, 
τιθεμένην being supplied, instead of which we have the fuller 
ending, παρὰ maou βεβαιοῦσαν. Nal, pyoiv—xakds, true, 
§ 259 he says, but the lot of Cephalus was honorable,—xahov 

" being the predicate of τὸ τοῦ Κεφάλου; ““ quod Cephalo 
contigit pulchrum est.” Scuarrer. See Aischines,§194. καὶ 
vq dw’ εὔδαιμόν γε, and, by Jupiter, a happy one, at 
least, if no more;—zxel expresses the rapidity of the retort, 
while ye, as if an afterthought, limits the assertion to the single 


τς ἘΠ Ἔν 


inpatient 


238 


thing, that it was a happy lot. τὸ tot Κεφάλου καλόν, 
the honorable lot of Cephalus,—xaioy being the predicate attri- 
bute of τὸ τοῦ Κεφάλου, as it was the adjective predicate before, 
ἐγράψατο, ἐδίω ξ δ, refer, according to Reiske, the former 
to bringing, the latter to trying, the suit. But Schaefer makes 
no distinction, considering them as only another instance of the 
orator’s love of pleonasm. μη ὃ ἐν, “Significantissimum h. ], 
μηδέν ne putes valere idem quod οὐδέν, Hoc vult orators 
etiamsi forte sim deterior Cephalo civis, tamen tu quidem tali 
usus argumento confiteris me nihilo deteriorem illo civem esse, 
Tot verbis opus est ad explicandum quod Grecorum mirabile 
idioma solo negativarum discrimine significat.” ScHAEFER. 


The present passage is a fine example of a Condensed State- 
ment of Facts. It differs from the Argumentative Narrative, 
in which the conviction produced depends upon combination, 
whereas, in the present case, it depends upon accumulation. In 
the former, the individual facts may be unimportant, but yet 
contribute to an important result ; in the latter, the individual 
facts are all weighty, but by being closely compacted acquire 
a greater momentum, 


§ 252-275. A Comparison or THE FoRTUNES OF HIMSELF AND 
AUSCHINES. ne 


Eschines had represented Demosthenes as the Evil Genius of 
Greece—* τὸν τὴς ᾿ Ελλάδος ddetijgvoy”—involving every body in 
destruction with whom he had any connection ;—one of those 
ill-fated men, according to the notion of the Greeks—destined 
of the gods to destroy themselves, and involve others in the 
same destruction. The connection of this topic with what im- 
mediately precedes is obvious. Having shown that the defeat 
did not happen from any thing within his sphere of action, the 
orator proceeds to show farther that it was not brought about 
by his evil Fate. ; 

ὅλως μὲν has its opposite in ἐπειδὴ δ᾽, the contrast being 
between Demosthenes and Aischines. προφέρει, “1. α. ὀνδυ- 
dite.” ScHarFeR, χρῆταν τῷ λόγῳ. 8668 238, viv 
ἐπέχει, which now prevails; with reference to the victories 
of Alexander. τὸ μὲν τοίνυγν-- πράττειν. Observe 


289 


g 054 how the orator condenses in this sentence the great prin- 
* ciples of his defense ; the choice of what is honorable, 
resulting, however, in what is useful. &@6+6, “arbitror.” 
ScuaErrer. bmiv, that is, δοκεῖν, κυρνωτέραν, has got- 
ten the mastery over, πάντως, at any rate, ὃ 256, like πᾶσαν 
in §246. ψυχρότητα, * folly,” Lord Brovenam; but 
“ bad taste;”? Kennepy. πενίαν woonnhaxiter, sneers 
at poverty. ἐκ tov ἐνόντων, under the circumstances. 
ἐμοὶ μέν, repeated below, ἐγὼ μέν, and having its 
th dence in σὺ δ᾽ δὲ μόν, having its cor- 
correspondence In σὺ θ΄. πᾶν μι ὃ», having its cor 
- respondence in ἐξελθόντι δέ, and ἐπειδὴ δέ. εἰσφέρϑδυν, 
“notum est dici, de tributo extraordinario ad belli necessi- 
tates.” Dissen. καλά γ᾽, honorable at least, however dis- 
astrous the result. Demosthenes never forgets his leading dis- 
tinctions, οἰκέτου t&éEtv—iymy, holding the post of a 
servant, not of a gentleman’s son. τῇ μητρὶ---συνεσ- 
xevwood, you recited to your mother while she was per- 
forming the rites of initiation—teloton—the formularies— 
τοὺς βίβλους, “carmina initiationum,’ ScHAEFER,—and got 
ready the other impostures,—ovveoxevwgod, “ ceteras impos- 
turas.” Dissen. Compare περὶ παραπ. ὃ. 221, 8219. veBol- 
Cav, putting on the fawn skins; that is, on the initiated, the 
reason for which Reiske thus explains ; “nam deponende ipsis 
erant suze vestes, quo nudi baptizarentur.” κρατδρίζων, 
“ bibendum dabat 115 vinum e cratere sacro.” Dissen. % a0 « l- 
ga, a general term, including the several rites of the lustra- 
tion, some of which the orator specifies; purifying. ἀπομάτ- 
των--πυτύροιυς, rubbing them down with clay and bran. 
One part of the lustration was to besmear-the body with clay, 
—neguidtreryv—and then to wipe it clean with bran—azouct- 
τειν. Reiske thus explains: “Loti fricabantur creta, ochra, 
argilla, et furfuribus, quee sunt res abstergendis sordibus oleosis, 
sudori, squalori, seu squamis cutis perquam accommodate, 
Saponem illi veteres ignorabant aut rarius eo utebantur.” 
ἀνιστάς, causing them to rise. “Sedebant humi, qui se 
expiandos prebebant sicut pcenitentes et lugentes. Nunc 
finita tota re surgere jubentur.”.Dissen. ἔφυγον κακόν, 
εὗρον ἄμεινον, a form of words expressive of gratitude, 
pronounced by the initiated, after their leader. φθέγγεσθαι 
οὕτω μέγα. Demosthenes frequently refers to the loud voice 


240 


of Aischines, as something on which he prided himself. Thus, 
in the περὶ παραπρεσβείας, he asks, “who of all in the city cat 
speak the loudest and utter what he likes in the clearest tone ? 
4schines.” ὃ 228. See, also, below, ὃ 285, $3138. θιάσους. 
See περὶ παραπ, § 322. τοὺς παρϑδίας, a noun in the accus- 
ative plural from παρείας, used as an adjective; cepper-colored 
snakes ; “est genus serpentinum ingentibus maxillis.” DissEy, 
676 ἄττης, Dissen supposes these words to be the refrain or 
chorus of a mystic hymn, and to be put for the whole hymn, 
“ Hoc carmen saltabat A’schines, motu et gestibus liberioribus, | 
orgiasticis imitans verba et sententias dum canerentur,” DissEn, 
dancing Hyes Attes, Attes Hyes. ἔξαρχος, leader of the 
singers, the Coryphaeus, προηγεμών, leader of the danc- 
ers; “utpote qui thiasos ducerent.” Diss—en. xteatogdgos, 
the chesi-bearer ; “ qui cistam sacram portaret qua reconditz 
res mystice.” Disszen, λεκνοφόρος, “ fan-bearer.” Ken- 
NEDY. λίκνον, “a fan-shaped basket, carried on the head at the 
feast of Bacchus, containing the sacrificial utensils and the first 
fruits; Virgil’s “ Mystica vannus Iacchi,” LippExt and Score. 
ὡς ἀληθῶς. See $85 and Note. γραμματεύειν, tobe 
an Assembly-clerk ; an office held in contempt. See περὶ magaz, 
§ 222, where the word is ὑπογραμματεύοντα, with the same 
meaning. tots ἀρχιδίοις, ‘petty magistrates,’ Ken- 
NEDY; a Meaning not in Passow, or Liddell and Scott. βα - 
ρυστόνοις, deep-groaning ; “sic dicti, opinor, quod in partibus 
suis agendis inepte et contra naturam ὑσεερσταθοῦντες spectatori- 
bus risum moverunt.” ScHAEFER. ὀὁπωρώνης, Dissen and 
Schaefer subjoin éxetvos, making the reference to a particular 
individual, but, besides the want of sufficient manuscript au- 
thority, ‘such a reference itself would hardly be expected from 
our orator. λαμβάνων, in most editions is followed by 
τραύματα, which is rejected by Dindorf on the authority of Co- 
dex 5. The present text has been translated thus: ‘ plus inde 
lucri faciens quam ex certaminibus, seu potius pro vita veris 
pugnis.” Doxsrese., ‘That is, the players made more out of the 
figs and grapes and olives with which they were pelted than from 
their playing, in which they carried on a constant contest with 
the audience. ἦν γὰρ---πόλεμος. This fine and forcible 
sentence,—nothing more forcible could be said of the most im- 
portant war—adds much to the picture, making it almost 


241 


humorovs:—a war without a truce, and which admitted of no 
herald, δειλούς, with reference to the charge of cowardice 
so frequently brought against him by Aischines. /Aschines, 
§ 148, 152, 155,175. τοῦ τρόπου, the objective genitive. 
ἐπῆλθέ σοι, tt came into your head, siyegas, recklessly. 
8265 ᾿Εξέτασον. We recall the course of thought. De- 

᾿ mosthenes first spoke of himself, though briefly, passing 
from boyhood to manhood, and then of Aischines, but at length, 
tracing the successive steps of his life till he became a public 
man. In both cases, he excuses himself from saying more—of 
himself, lest he might offend by seeming to boast, but of Atschi- 
nes, because there were things which it-would be disgraceful 
for him even to mention. He now sums up the whole topic in 
a parallel between .Aischines and himself, in which the con- 
trast is brought down to the present trial. The parallel, there- 
fore, must be interpreted with this in view. βδβεέωμένα. 
See 8180, γράμματα, the A, B, C's, 8129. ἐφοίτων, 
that is, to respectable schools, ἃ 951. ἐτέλεες, that is, into 
the mysteries just described, 8259. ἐτδλούμη x, that is, into 
the Eleusinian mysteries, ἐχόρϑδυες, with reference to éog- 
χούμενος ὑῆς ἄττης, above. ἐχορήγουν, I furnished a cho- 
rus; an honorable one. See §257. But, notwithstanding the 
peculiarly emphatic contrast in the above words, it seems better 
to render them without the circumlocution which would be 
necessary to express it. You taught letters, but I went to 
school ; you initiated, but I was initiated; you danced in a 
chorus, but I furnished a chorus; you was a clerk in the As- 
sembly, but I, a speaker; you acted third parts, but I was a 
spectator ; you was hissed off, but I hissed; you managed 
every thing for the enemy, dut I, for the country. 2&énen- 
tec. This is more fully expressed in the περὶ παραπρεσβείας. 
You drove him off and hissed him from the stage, and onlygdid 
not stone him to death, so that at last he gave up acting third 
parts. ὃ 389.——Milten has professedly imitated this parallel, 
In reply to the charge of frequenting play-houses, founded. 
on certain play-house expressions in his writings, he says: 
“ But since there is such necessity to the hearing of a tire, a 
periwig, or a vizard, that plays must have been seen, what dif- 
ficulty was there in that? when, in the colleges, so many of 
the young divines, and those in next aptitude to divinity aygye 

21 ᾿ 


242 


been so often upon the stage, writhing and unboning their 
clergy limbs to all the antic and dishonest gestures of trincu- 
loes, buffoons and bawds, prostituting the shame of that minis- 
try which either they had or were nigh having to the eyes of 
courtiers, and court-ladies with their grooms and madamoiselles. 
There while they acted and overacted, among other young 
scholars I was a spectator; they thought themselves gallant 
men, and I thought them fools; they made sport, and I 
Jaughed ; they mispronounced, and I misliked ; and to make 
up the atticism, they were out, and I hissed.” Apology for 
Smectymnus, ἀλλὰ γυγνὶ- τῶν ψήφων, but now to-day 
εεἴ---- ἐγὼ μέν contrasted with oot dé—am on trial as to whether 
I deserve to be crowned, and am admitted to have done no 
wrong whatever, while you of necessity on the one hand—ov- 
κοφάντη μέν having its correspondence in κενδυγεύεις 0é—must 
be regarded as a malicious accuser, and on the other, run the 
risk, whether it must needs be that you should still carry on 
this business, or be now stopped by not getting the fifth part 
of the votes. With respect to this contrast of their respective 
situations on the trial, the point is this: Demosthenes is ac- 
knowledged to have done no wrong, the only question being 
whether what he has done deserves a crown; Aischines is 
known as a malicious accuser, the only question, or rather the 
risk which he runs—being whether he shall continue in that 
business, or be stopped in it. 7 
8967. ἀν αὙ νὮ, let meread, the first person being used to 
correspond to καὶ σύ, although the orator reads it only 
‘as causing it to be read, as is manifest from λέγε below. ἐλυ- 
μαίνου, which you murdered. Yxw—nihac. JI came, 
“the mansions of the dead, and the gates of darkness,” leav- 
ἐηρ---λιπών, from a verse not quoted. Eurip. Hecuba. 1. κα- 
καγγελεῖν---με, “hice quoque Euripidis Sophoclisve ex 
trageedia perdita versus est.” W.Dinporr. #00766, kind. 
οὐδέν, “scilicet, εἴποιμι." ReiskE. προὰ χθήσομαιυ, “sci- 
Ἰιοούς ποιεῖν." Dissun. 
Demosthenes having spoken of the fortune of Aischines and 
of himself, both as private and as public men, proceeds to speak 
of the prevalent fortune of all men and nations, in order to 
show, on the one hand, the true cause of the common calami- 
lesand, on the other, the unfairness of Aischines in charging 
with being the cause, 


248 


8970 ἀπαλλαγείς, having escaped; as if from some- 
’ thing unpleasant. Compare ἀπαλλαγή, §145. ὑπὸ 
τοῦτον τὸν ἥλιον, under this sun, the world of the 
Greeks ; like the English, “under the sun.” φοράν teva 
πραγμάτων, *a certain force of circumstances.” Lord 
BroucHaM. τὸν παρὰ τουτοισί πεπολυτευμένον, 
charge me with being the cause, who conducted public affairs 
among these ; that is, only among these, whereas the suffering 
had been extended to persons, who had never seen or heard him. 
zal ταῦτ᾽ εἰδώς. The orator introduces here another topic, 
that in making such a charge, Aischines really brought an ae- 
cusation against all the Athenians, and not least against himself. 
Demosthenes returns now to a favorite topic, already several 
times used, that Aischines should have given better counsels, if 
he had any, at the time measures were to be decided upon, not 
now find fault. §§ 188,189,196. οὐ γὰρ--τυμῶν, for not 
out of good-will at least did you relinquish to me hopes, glory 
and honors. éghaidwy, “spes laudis et premiorum.” DissEn. 
παρὰ wiv τοίνυν τοῖς ἄλλοις. The comparison is 
between all other men and Aschines—Aloylyys tolyvy—though 
not formally carried out ; hence, the corresponding particle dé 
is not used. ἀδικεῖ tes ἑκών. See, for this form of the 
sentence, $117,198. ἐν τοῖς νομέμους, “in seriptis 
legibus.” Dissen. τοῖς ἀγράφοις. Lord Brougham re- 
fers to Cicero’s well-known—*“ non enim scripta sed nata lex ;” 
ὥστε---κατηγορεῖ, so that even what he enumerates as 
MISFORTUNES, even these he imputes to me AS CRIMES—“ as 
crimes,” implied in κατηγορεῖ, and necessary, to make out the 
antithesis. Lord Brovenam. | 


Lord Brougham remarks that “the whole passage upon For- 
tune seems inferior to the general style of Demosthenes.” But, 
certainly in respect to style, no part of the oration is more care- 
fully elaborated ; few passages, indeed, are equal to the deserip- 
tion of the rites of initiation, or to the parallel between the 
lives of the two orators. With respect to the topic itself, doubt- 
less it would never be formally introduced into a modern speech, 
yet Demosthenes had sufficient reasons for entering upon it. 
The sentiments were in accordance with the popular opinions of 
the age, and it is not unlikely that it was necessary to remove 


244 


the effect of the charge of being an ill-fated man. Besides 
there were several incidental advantages in the topic. 

1. It enabled the orator to set forth the common fortunes of 
all men in that age as hard and severe, and thus to fortify his 
position, that the battle had been lost by the decree of Fortune. 

2. In drawing the comparison between himself and Atschines, 
he was enabled to repeat several of the more important points 
of his defense, without the appearance of repetition; such as, 
that, “his enemies even could not say that the policy which 
he had adopted was not at least honorable ;’—or, that “Aischi- 
nes grew bold and cheerful, just in proportion as the country 
suffered adversity.” 

3. It also enabled him, without offense, to conciliate the 
good-will of the audience, and at the same time to depreciate 
his opponent. | 


§ 276-284. RepLy TO THE CHARGE OF DECEIVING BY THE 
POWER OF ELOQUENCE. 


Demosthenes has shown that the ill-success of his Theban 
policy was not attributable to any thing within his sphere of 
action, nor to his evil fate; to all appearance hasshown it. But 
yet, the judges, if they trust to Atschines, may think it an ap- 
pearance only, produced by the magic of oratory. That im- 
pression, the orator would remove; hence, the present topic, 
which, like the preceding, is opened abruptly, without a transi- 
tion sentence. δὲδονόν, an adjective, used as a substantive, ° 
to which the abstract δευνότητα below corresponds; calling me 
an artful speaker, and juggler, and sophist, and the like. 7Bs- 
chines, 816, 207, ὡς ἐάν-- ἔχοντα, as though, if one 
should be the first to say of another what belongs to himself, that 
even now,—or, at once—becomes so;—xat δή, “ protinus.” ScHAE- 
FER. “Nam καὶ δή apud Atticos prope idem est, quod ἤδη." 
Herm. ad Vic. p, 827. For the construction of ὡς with the _ 
participle, see Kinnur Gr. 8.812, 6,d, Also, 8122. καίτον 
ἔγωγ᾽ πεφρον εῖν, alihough I perceive that those who hear 
are for the most part masters of the power of those who speak ; 
—the audience controls the speaker, not the speaker, the audi- 
ence—for according as you receive and favor each speaker, is he ~ 
thought to be skillful. In the περὶ nagangeofelas the orator 


245 


states the same truth negatively: other powers are tolerably in- 
dependent, but that of speaking is reduced to nothing when you 
who hear are.unfavorable. ὃ. 393.—According to modern no- 
tions, it is paradoxical to say that the audience is master of the 
power, natural or acquired, of the speaker; but with the Greek, 
power in oratory is only power so far as it is successful, and 
success depends mainly upon the character which the orator 
bears among those whom he addresses. Aristotle, in his Rhet- 
.orie, dwells upon the reputation of the speaker for good sense, 
good will, and integrity, as affecting his power over his hearers. 
So, also, Whately. But this short parenthesis gives the sub- 
stance of all that has been since said by Rhetorical writers; 
παρ᾽’ ἐμοί. See § 110, 233. ἐξεταζομένην. ἐξετάζεσ- 
Gav, to be tested ; hence, as a result of such trial, to be shown to 
be so and so; and, hence, to appear to be, or simply, to be, so © 
and so. Munifested, εἴ tic ἐλύπησέ te. See below, 
§ 307. δὲ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ --- ἔχειν, but tf perchance there is a neces- 
sity, to have them mildly and moderately disposed, ὃν of s— 
τῷ δήμῳ, in those things in which some allimportant matter 
of the commonwealth is at stake, and in which the people are con- 
tending against their enemies. πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους 
ἐστὶ τῷ δήμῳ. Some manuscripts and editions have ἐστέ τι, 
but te is also omitted by Dissen, and Voemel; “et δὲ adversus 
adversarios res est populo.” Dissen. But Kennedy, “and he, 
(the orator) 2s opposed to the adversaries of the people.” ταῦτα 
γὰἀρ---πολίτου, for these things call for the noble and good 
citizen ; it is theirs to direct them. Compare 8190. μηδενὸς 
δὲ ἀδικήματος--ἔχειν κακίαν. This section contains 
the same topics as are dwelt upon, more at length in ὃ 12-16, 
See especially §15, 16. πᾶσαν κακίαν, all possible wick- 
edness. Compare πᾶσαν ἐξέτασιν, § 246. καί wor δοκεῖς 
-“-τιμωρίαν. For same topic, see §226. λόγων; φω- 
»ασκίας. These are distinct things; eloquence and elocution. 
_“Duas res Aischines dicitur ostentare voluisse, orandi faculta- 
tem et vocis sonorem. Docent que sequuntur.” ScHAEFER. 
ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς, “scilicet ἀγκύρας." Dissen. A proverbial 
expression, sometimes found without the ellipsis. Herod. 7, 188. 
“ Does not anchor in the same roadstead :” Lord BroveHamM} 
“rides not on the same anchorage’ Kennepy. ‘These transla- 
tions give the thought, but ὙΠ a slight change of the figure ; 
TER: 


246 


he is not held—moored—by the same anchor. ἐγώ, “scilicet, 
eadem nitor anchora.” Reiske. ἐξαίρετον οὐδ’ ἔδιον; 
nothing separate—from the public,—nor personal. “JI have no 
interests separate and distinct.” Kunnepy. 


The triumph of oratorical art would be for the orator, at the 
time of speaking, to be himself unconscious of being an orator, 
and to be unthought of as such by his audience. Whatever is 
attributed to art is so much detracted from the impression 
which should be made, not only as putting the hearer in a crit- 
ical state of mind, so that he listens as a judge of what the 
orator is, not of what he says, but, also, as leadig him to fear — 
being misled .by false reasoning and artful appeal. Hence, the. 
frequent charge, on the one hand, and disclaimer, on the other, 
of being an orator. Never was there a more felicitous reply to 
such a charge; never a more dextrous use of the opportunity 
afforded by such a charge. The parallel between himself and 
#éschines as to the ends for which they had respectively em- 
ployed their power, besides being most admirable in itself, en- 
ables him in an easy and natural way, to repeat his leading 
topics. Upon the frequent repetition of topics in this part of 
his speech, Lord Brougham remarks: “ Here is the same lead- 
ing topic once more introduced ; but introduced after new top- 
ics and fresh illustrations. The repetitions, the enforcement 
again and again of the same points, are a distinguishing feature 
of Demosthenes, and formed also one of the characteristics of 
Mr. Fox’s great eloquenee. The ancient, however, was incom- 
‘parably more felicitous in this than the modern ; for in the lat- 
ter it often arose from carelessness, from ill-arranged discourse, 
from want of giving due attention, and from having once or 
twice attempted the topic and forgotten it, or perhaps from 
having failed to produce the desired effect. Now in Demosthe- 
nes this is never the case: The early allusions to the subject of 
the repetition are always perfect in themselves, and would suf- 
ficiently have enforced the topic, had they stood alone. But 
new matter afterwards handled gave the topic new force and 
fresh illustration, by presenting the point in a new light.” 


247 


§ 285-288. Appointment oF DEMOSTHENES ΤῸ PRONOUNCE 
THE FUNERAL ORATION OVER THE SLAIN. 


ΠΣ 


ἔτ᾽ ἄμεινον, still the more. ἐν οἷς, when. ἄδειαν; 
security in speaking what they thought. “ Vacuitas mettis ab lis 
uz cogitat, etiamsi libere eloquatur.” Scuarrer, i204 0 uU- 
&vovtes—with this text, the sentence is unfinished. Dissen 
has the finite verb ὑπελάμβανον. mag ἐμοί. See above, ὃ 277. 
ἐπὶ τὰς ταφάς ---- ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν τάφων παρασκευὴν : WESTERMANN 5 
over the burial. ὡς, “referendum ad superlativum.” Scuan- 
FER, ἕκαστος ἑκάστῳ, each survivor to each of the dead. 


The present topic furnished the orator with an opportunity 
to draw another parallel between himself and Atschines, but 
on another point;—having reference to the feelings with 
which each regarded his country and its citizens; Demos- 
thenes, rejoicing in her prosperity and sympathizing with the 
people in their adversity,—_A#schines, sad in her prosperity and 
exulting in her adversity. This pomt, the orator enforces again 
and again henceforth to the end. 


§ 289-290. Tue Inscrirtion. 


δημοσίᾳ, at the public expense. dnt jh sabato “ Tn- 
scribebantur talia στήλῃ in sepulehro posite.” Dissen. The 
ashes of those who fell in battle were burned i in the Ceramicus, 
and Pausamias mentions having seen in the suburbs of the city 
the monument which was placed over those who fell at Cheero- 
nea. 1,19,11. By whom the inscription was written is not known. 
λήματος. The reading of the manuscripts, δείματος, fear, is 
corrupt, for which the conjecture of Valckener, adopted in 
the text, seems to be the best substitute. λήματος as well as 
ἀρετῆς is construed with βραβῆ. And fighting they spared not 
life, but made death the common rewarder of bravery and valor 
—common, says Dissen, because all were worthy of rewards— 
for the sake of the Greeks. ἥδε πρίσες, which follows. ἂν» 
βιοτῆ---ἔπο gév, but τη life—that is, of men, in contrast with 
θεῶν, or expressing the abstract in the concrete form, among 
men—to ) flee from fate the Deity permits not—o} t+ Eno ge», 
that is, 6 θεός. & vr éOy "8, that is, τὸ ἐπίγραμμα, 


248 


§ 291-324. Conctusion. 


The honors paid to the slain fitly conclude the fatal drama of 
the last sacred war. The orator has gone through it with all 
the skill of consummate art, and has made out for himself a 
perfect defense. ‘With this terminates, also, the course of his 
entire defense ; and from this point he begins to draw towards 
the end of his speech. What remains is, for the most part, a 
repetition, under the form of refutation, of the principal topics 
of his defense. There is a definite course of thought, the topics 
of which may be arranged as follows : 

I. The feelings exhibited by Atschines at the calamities of 
his country. ὃ. 291-293. 

Il. The betrayal of the freedom of Greece. ὃ. 294-296. 

III. The course of Demosthenes against the traitors. § 297-- 
305. 

IV. Codperation of Zschines with them. § 306-313. 

γι, A comparison of himself and Aischines, with reference to 
the great men of former times. § 314-320, 

VI. The feelings exhibited by A’schines and Demosthenes 
towards their country. § 321-323. 

VII. Peroration. 

§ 291-293. Tur Fee.ines EXHIBITED BY AUSCHINES AT THE 
CALAMITIES OF HIS CoUNTRY.—704ity¢, “subaudi. ἔχον." 
Scnarrer. ἔσχε τὴν γνώμην, he expressed no senti- 
ments, ἐπάρας τὴν φωνήν, How subtle the discrimina- 
tion, which detects the false patriot in the tones of his voice, 
and how fine the turn which is thus given to the charges which 
Aéschines had brought against him. tots γεγδνημένοις 
--τοῖς ἄλλοις. For asimilar topic, see § 217. τὸν τῶ» 
νόμων---φροντίζευιν»ν, Aischines, from the conservative 
point of view which he assumed, had dwelt much upon the 
ancient laws and constitution of the government, ταὐτὰ 
λυπεῖσθαι--τοῖς πολλοῖς. Forasimilar topic, see § 280, 
τῶν ποινῶν, public measures. πράγματα, difficulties, 
Demosthenes using the milder word, but Atschines the stronger 
ἀτυχήματα. See Aischines, §57. πραττομὲν 1%: For this 
pesiieon of the participle, see ὃ: 98,126,314. du’ 2 μὲ ---ὖ ε- 

ώκατε, Compare § 206. ἕνεκα τῆς moos ἐ δὰ, ἔ χ- 
θρας. See 8.279, and compare ὃ 125. 


249 


$ 294-296. ΤΠῈ Trarrors wHo BETRAYED ΟΠΕΕΟΕ.--- 9 
orator passes from Aischines to the whole body of traitors who 
coéperated in betraying Greece. This topic is introduced under 
the guise of a reply to the charge of philippizing which Aéschi- 
nes had brought against him. 

φιλιππισμόν. In speaking of the First peace, dischines 
charges Demosthenes with being a flatterer of Philip, §61. ὡς 
ἀληθῶς, really, See§ 85. τοὺς ὑπάρχοντας, “cives sue 
factionis, scilicet, clientele,” ScHAamrer, each their own partt- 
zans. For this meaning of—belonging to or being friendly to— 
in ὑπάρχοντας, see $174. ἠκρωτηριασμένοι, “mutilating.” 
Lord BroueHaM. προπεπωκότες, “toasting away.” Lord 
Brovenam. We have had several descriptions of the traitors 

‘before—see especially ὃ. 46-49—but this is the finest of all. 
Nothing can be added, nothing taken away; the whole intense 
indignation of his soul is poured out in these few terrible epithets. 

§ 291-306. Conpuct or DEMOSTHENES AGAINST THESE TRAI- 
TORS—dvaitvocs, guiltless; “carens culpa.” ScHAEFER. 
εἶτά w ἐρωτᾷς. See Aschines, §236. ἐγὼ δή. δή ex- 
presses the assurance with which the orator speaks; to be sure 
I say to thee; I do not hesitate to say. ὅσα---συμβεβού- 
hevxa, nor in whatever counsel I at any time gave to these, 
did I give the counsel like you, as if in a scale, inclining to the 
side of interest. ῥέπων ἐπὶ τὸ λῆμμα, “inelinans ad lucrum.? 
Dissen. For the same figure, see περὶ εἰρήνης, $60. διεέσυ - 
ges. See Aischines, § 236. οὐ λίθοις. See Aischines, § 84. 
οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις---φρον ὦ, nor, of my measures—tor 
éuavtov—am I the most proud—péytatov φρονῶ----ΟΥ these. Burr- 
MANN Gr. § 147, p. 417. τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ construed with μέγιστον. 
τοὺς ἀμυνουμένου ς, “nempe presens participii cum ar- 
ticulo est pro substantivo,” Dissen; and many troops for the 
defense of these—the Athenians. 

§ 301-305. The orator having spoken of the general aim of 
his measures, now proceeds to particulars. We find a similar 
topic in § 240-241, and § 230-231. τοὺς ὁμόρους ταύτῃ. “ Puta 
Megarenses, Corinthios, Achzos.” Disszen. φιυλέαν, supply 
χώραν, along a friendly region to the Pireus, τὰ δ᾽ ὅπως 
-- πρᾶξαι, to manage the others, that they may become friendly 
and allied. παρεθέντα, “per negligentiam.” ScHAEFER. 
προεθέντα, “per proditionem.” SCHAEFER. στρατηγῶν, 


250 


without the article, and hence spoken of only a portion of the 
commanders. ἢ πάντα---ἀνέτρεψαν, or all these weak- 
ened the chief interests of the republic—t& ὅλα —= summa reipub- 
lice, Scuarrer—till they worked destruction. | 

§ 306-318. ΟΟΡΕΒΑΤΙΟΝ oF AUSCHINES WITH THE TRAITORS. 
--ὑπῆρχεν. ἄν omitted, as also with προσῆν. See ὃ 248, 
Note. ὡς ἑτέρως. See § 85. μέν δον depends upon ὕποσ- 
tivta, ἡσυχία. See Aischines, §216. τἀνθρώπενα, 
includes, besides the idea of belonging to man, the idea of 
frailty ; and many are human casualties. σαφῶς καὶ ἀπ- 
vevati, ina clear tone, and without pauses: a picturesque 
description of one who speaks without feeling, as if from mem- 
- ory, something in which he has no earnest interest. ὃ» τοῖς 
᾿ ἄνω χρόνοις, in the earlier period of the republic, con- 
᾿ς trasted with 6 παρελθὼν χρόνος, the times just preceding. ἐ § é- 
Tages, a trial: these things were the tests of public men. 
᾿ἀποδείξ ec, opportunities ; that is, of showing what he was. 
ἐν οἷς, “scilicet, ἀνδράσι καλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς, id quod e proximo 
ἀνδρὶ καλῷ te κἀγαθῷ tacite excipiendum.” Reiske, οὔκουν 
--ηὐξάνδτω, not, at least in any of those things by which 
the country was benefitted. “Inest his verbis sareasmus satis 
amarus. Hoc enim orator vult: certe virtus tua civica nihil quid- 
quam contulit ad eas res, quibus civitas augeretur.” ScHAEFER, 
tig yao συμμαχία, Fora similar sentence, see the περὲ 
παραπ. §323. τίς---χρημάτων, what pecuniary aid of a 
political and public character from you to the rich or the poor 2— 
such as was furnished by Demosthenes’ Trierarchy law. “ zoder- 
ἐκὴ καὶ κοινὴ junguntur ut affinis voces sensus; nam que ποεγὰ 
sunt, sunt eadem πολιτικά." SonarFrerR. ἐπεδίδοσαν, after 
the battle of Cheronea. εἰς τὴν ἐπιτιμίαν, for his civil 
rights ; that is, for their recovery. παρῆλθες. “Magna vis 
est in verbo παρῆλθες. Aischines 6 πρότερον πολλάκις φθεγξάμε- 
γος ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος, quo tempore pecunia largienda esset ad 
necessitates civitatis sublevandas, cavit παρελθεῖν καὶ φθέγξασ- 
Oo.” Scuanrer. ὃς γε---πεντεταλάντωνν, whoat least 
inherited from the estate of your kinsman Philo more than five 
talents. Scuanrer. ἔρανον. “The support which private 
individuals procured by means of a particular agreement which 
they made by entering into a society (ἔρανος) differed from pub- 
lic maintenance. The society itself and the money subscribed 


251 


was called %oavos, the members ἐραγεσταί, their whole number, 
the community of ἐραγεσταί, (τὸ κουνὸν τῶν ἐρανιστῶν), and 
their president, ἐρανάρχης. Their objects were of the most vari- 
ous description; if some friends wanted to provide a dinner, or 
a corporation to celebrate a solemnity, to give a banquet, or to 
forward any particular purpose by bribery, the expense was de- 
frayed by an %gavos.” Beeckh, Pub. Econ. of Athens, Bk. I, 
Ch. xvi, p.245. ἔρανον δωρεάν, aclub-gift, ἐλυμήνω. 
It would seem from this that Aischines was bribed to procure 
the abrogation of Demosthenes’ law of the Trierarchy. ἵνα μή 
--ἐ κκρούσω, that speaking word after word—passing from 
topic to topic—J may not carry myself away from the present 
topic. veavlas, an adjective; active. 


§ 314-320. A COMPARISON OF HIMSELF AND AYSCHINES WITH 
REFERENCE TO THE GREAT MEN OF FORMER TIMES. 


The most powerful passages in the speech of Aischines were 
those in which he brought forward the ancient heroes of Greece, 
Solon, Aristides, Themistocles, Miltiades, and placed them in 
contrast with Demosthenes. “Demosthenes, however, turns this 
very topic greatly to his own advantage. Under cover of it he 
refers to these heroes, and thus is enabled to say, without of- 
fense, that at least in spirit and purpose, he had aimed at the 
same things with them. It was in appealing to these ancient 
heroes on this point, that he reached the climax of his speech, 
in the Oath ; but it was too important a topic not to be, intro- 
duced into his concluding address; and here it comes in very 
appropriately. The orator had stated his own policy with re- 
gard to the conspiracy against the freedom of Greece, and con- 
‘trasted it with the policy of Auschines, He now refers naturally 
to the great men of ancient times, and shows that his policy 
aimed at the same things with theirs, while that of Atschines 
accorded with the policy of those who opposed those ancient 
heroes. 

προλαβόντα, taking advantage of; or, turning to his 
own account. κρίνωμαν καὶ GewoGmar; amT to be 
judged and scrutinized? émi τὸν παρόντα βίον, “in 
presentem etatem.” Dissen. κατ᾽’ ἐκείνους, in those 
times. διέσυρον μέν, τοὺς δέ, “Adverte sedem harum 


202 


particularum. Hee enim particule duo periodi membra haud 
raro ita jungunt, ut qui notionum ordo in priori membro fuit 
in posteriori convertatur. Sic ordine notionum converso hic ad 
56 referuntur διέσυρον et ἐπῆνουν, τοὺς ὄντας τότε et τοὺς πρότε. 
ρον γεγενημένους." ScHaEFeR. See, also, 8168, μηδὲν ἄλλ᾽, 
nothing else, that is, than ὦ yoyoté. τοὺς καθ᾽’ αὑτόν, 
those of the same age; the orator and his contemporaries. ὥ σε 
weo τἄλλα πάντα, “Scilicet ἐξετάζειν σε δεῖ." SCHAEFER, 
See §171, Note, for the neuter, οὐδένα ἐξίσταμαι, I 
shrink from none; “comparationem cum nemine defugio,” 
ScnanreR, ὧν -- ἐφαινόμην, of whom, when it was in the 
power of the state to choose the best course, love of country being 
proposed to all in common as the object of rivalry, L ap- 
peared proposing that which prevailed. κράτεστα, “scilicet, 
que preferebantur ceteris et victoriam reportabant, aliorum 
sententiis et rogationibus postpositis.” Dissen. ἐξέτασες, 
see §310. ἐν τάξει---Ἠὀπποτρόφος, in a position of 
distinction—tééec, a position, but here used emphatically of a 
distinguished position: “eine ansehnliche Stelle,” Passr.—and 
a great and splendid keeper of race-horses. ἱπποτρόφος. 
Men of ambition and high rank were accustomed to train horses 
for the games and races, and among the young men there arose 
an excessive passion for horses, which is spoken of by many 
ancient writers. Boeckh, Pub. Econ. of Athens, Bk. I. Ch. x1v, 
p- 74. “ Became flourishing, and wealthy, and attended with 
equipages.” Lord BroveHamM. 


§ 321-323. Tue Fretincs MANIFESTED BY AUSCHINES AND 
DEMOSTHENES TOWARD THEIR COUNTRY. 


Having thus completed the general subject of the conspiracy 
against the Freedom of Greece, together with his own opposi- 
tion, and Aischines’ support of it, and having compared their 
conduct respectively with that of the great men of former times, 
he returns to the topic with which in ὃ 291-293, he commenced 
this part of the oration ;—the feelings exhibited by himself and 
“¥schines towards their country. 

dio δ᾽ ---εὔνοναν, these two things, Athenians, it becomes 
the citizen of naturally ordinary worth, to have—for to speak 
thus—ottw, “ quod dico me πολέτην φύσει μέτριον," SCHAEFER— 


258 


will be the least invidious for me in referring to myself,—see 
§ 10,—on the one hand, in emergencies,—“ Sunt ἐξουσίαν oppor- 
tuna momenta, ubi liceat τὰ πρωτεῖα persequi, quemadmodum 
supra dicit ὅτε μὲν τῆ πόλεν τὰ βέλτιστα ἑλέσθαν παρῆν," DissEN, 
—to maintain the cnoice of that which gives honor and the 
jirst rank to the state, but on every occasion and in every action, 
goodwill ; for of this latter—maintaining goodwill—nature 1s 
mistress, but of power and superiority, other things ; that is, 
fortune, or faults of generals, or corruption of traitors, as De- 
mosthenes enumerates in § 303. Lord Brougham remarks that 
“it does not very distinctly appear that Demosthenes enumer- 
ates two qualities.” The first quality is that hereditary spirit 
of independence, that regard for “glory, ancestry, and poster- 
ity,” which, as the orator had before said, 8.199, would lead to 
the choice of what is honorable, even in the certainty of defeat, 
The second is, that natural kindness, which manifests itself in 
love to the citizens as individuals. The orator contrasts emer- 
gencies—év μὲν ταῖς éovolavc—with the routine of ordinary 
life—éy παντὶ δὲ xavgg,—and lays down the principle of duty 
in each, with the reason of it. In all cases, the citizen should 
maintain goodwill, for nature is mistress of this; im emergencies, 
the choice of what is honorable—the choice, for of the success- 
ful results of his choice, other things are arbiters. The clause 
tov δύνασθαι----ὅτερα gives the reason for the use of the exprese 

sion, τὴν προαίρεσιν διαφυλάττειν instead of δύνασθαν καὶ ἰσχύ- 
ey, ταύτην, that is, δὔνοιαν. ἐξαιτούμενος, “ab Al- 
exandro post eversas Thebas.” Dissen. ἐπαγόντων, spoken 
of Aischines and his party. &té9w¥, the Macedonians. éxet- 
σε, Macedonia. φασὶ δεῖν τηρεῖν. See ἃ 89. 


8 324. ῬΕΒΟΒΑΊΙΟΝ, 


The orator ends as he began, with a prayer. ἐξώλδυς 
καὶ προώλευς, “est solennis formula imprecantium diras, 
v. p. 395,” Scuarrer; utterly destroyed, 

22 


OF ες ἴι. 
SOF canigornlts 


254 


TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION SELECTED 
FROM ‘THE ANNOTATIONS. 


1. Give the structure of the sentence, § 1-2; also of its 
clauses. 


2. Repeat the remarks made upon the matter of the sen- 
tence apart from its form. 


v 9%. Character of the exordium. 
4, Give the contents of the First Part of the oration, and 
point out the skill of the orator in making this division. 


9. In ἀναγκαῖον---δίκαιον in § 9, point out the emphatic po- 
sition of the words. 


6. In the defense of his private. Life, § 10-11, mention 
the characteristic of the orator which is pointed out. 


7. What is said of the Deprreation of an Opponent, in 
remarks to § 12-16. 


8. Into what three divisions does the orator divide the topic 
of the Peace ? 


9. In § 18-20, point out the structure of the sentences 
analyzed in the notes; also, what is said of that kind of nar- 
Yrative. 


10. Why does the orator speak of the Agents of the peace, 
after the causes of the peace, § 21. 


11, Give the remarks on Refutation, founded on § 22-24. 


12. Mention the practice of the orator in the statement of 
facts, as founded on § 25-30. 


13. Mention what is said on the section, treating of the re- 
mote consequences of the Peace, ᾧ 42-49. _ 


14. Demosthenes coming to speak of the Indictment itself, 
has to answer the claim of Atschines, that he should follow 
the same order with himself ;—how does he answer it? how 
does this answer differ from that at the opening of the speech ? 
Why are these answers kept distinct? What is said of the 
skillfulness of this movement? pp. 148-150. 


255 
“15. Mention, in their order, the principal topics of the 
Defense. pp. 145-146. 


16. What are the principal topics in the account of his 
Foreign Administration? p. 150. 


“ 17. What new topic is suggested by διεκωλύθη in 
§ 60? and what is said of the consistency of the several 
parts of the oration? p. 191]. 


18. Into what two parts is the statement preliminary to the 
account of his Foreign Administration divided? What is 
said of the topic in the first part? p. 153. 


19. Analyze the structure of the compound sentence 
xheovéxtyua—ylyveobat, in Κ 6], pp. 152-153. 

v 20. In the second part, Demosthenes contends that there 

was no other honorable course left than to interpose for the 


defense of Greece ;—Under what three aspects does he pre- 
sent the proposition ? 


21. In § '73-78, Demosthenes proves that Philip, not Ath- 
ens, broke the peace ; that other statesmen, not himself, pro- 
posed war ;—why was he anxious to show this ἢ 


v 22. What is said of Demosthenes’ mode of treating facts,— 


as appears from the account of his Foreign Administration ? 
pp. 165, 168. 


23. Give the remarks upon the examples alleged by De- 
mosthenes in justification of his measures. pp. 172-174. 


24. Give the structure of the sentence, ὑμεῖς τοίνυν 
—aoayGévtwy, Also, show how the sentence, *«altovu 
τότε ---- ὦρω », repeats and condenses the former. 


25. Give the account of the Trierarchy prefixed to the an- 
notations upon Demosthenes’ account of his Trierarchy law. 
pp. 175-178. 

26. What is said of that account? p. 181. 


27. What is said of Demosthenes’ treatment of the merely 
Legal Points of the case? p. 188. 


28. What is said, in the passage of transition from the Sec- 
ond to the Third part of the speech, § 123-125, upon the 
topic with which it ends? and what as to the periodic form 
of the Defense? On what pretense does he take a new posi- 
tion in the Third Part of the speech ? 


/ 


a 


256 
' 29. Give the summary of the three parts of the speech, in» 
p. 191. 


30. Mention the general topics of this part of the speech. 


31. What is said of the portion of the speech relating to 
the Amphissean war? and what are the principal topics ? 


32. What is said on the topic of exaggeration, in Remarks 
to § 140-144? p. 200. 

33. What, of the διήγησις ἀποδειτική, in § 143-148? p. 
203. 


34. Give the topics in the account of Deniontlicney course 
in the Amphissean war. p. 204. 


35. Give the remarks on the description of the consterna- 


tion at Athens, on the news of the seizure of Elatea. pp. 
206-208. 


36. Why is the reported speech of Demosthenes in a lower 
style of oratory? p. 209. 


37. What is said on the Remarks preliminary to a consid- 
eration of the results of the proposed measures? pp. 210, 
218.--Give the order of the remarks. p.211. What is said 
upon the ὥσπερ νέφος p,211. What on the Oath? 
pp. 219-221. What upon the topics which immediately fol- 
low? p. 221. 


38. What is said upon the orator’s treatment of facts, in 
the Narrative? p. 222. 


39. Upon what facts does the orator depend to show that 
the people approved his measures, after the defeat at Che- 
ronea ὃ 


40. What reason is given for the introduction of the topic 
of Fortune where it is? and what is said of the topic itself ? 
pp. 243-244, 


41. What, for the introduction of the reply to the charge 
of misleading by his oratory, where it is? and what is said 
of the topic itself? What, of the frequent repetition of top- 
ices? p. 246. 

42. What is the course of thought in the concluding por- 
tion of the speech and the order of the topics ?>-—- What is the 
character of the topics ? 


ἀν 
Neat aly ] af 
ity Pel ἣν 


τὰς 
) 


ay) 


Shit Nye = 
ah nes 
pty 


ΠΥ Ἂν 
arava Be tks 
an ΡΒ 


a 


vt Say It cima 
alte 
ates 
᾿ | 


ne 
me 


THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
" STAMPED BELOW 


WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 


DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
OVERDUE. 


MAY 12 1938 


Peer enamine rn comune mae TNA 0 
t 


LD 21-95m-7,'37 


at, Oo 


RS Ε : ἵ LAP Bott Dee af ne 
U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 


a 


CO4b20b39b 7 ge Se 


ed 
wp 
Σ Δ 
ἢ 
τ 
'r 
. 
eer 
Pt 
+3} 
x 


